The state of Wisconsin allows the governor to eliminate parts of legislation he doesn't like using a line item veto. Today, Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a couple of digits and a hyphen from a two-year increase in the school budget. The original said this:
for the 2023-24 school year and the 2024-25 school year, add $325
After the vetoed digits it said this:
for 2023-2425, add $325
So it's now a 400-year increase. But this can't possibly be legal, can it? Could Evers carefully excise individual letters from a sentence to change, say, this:
no amount over $5,000 may be allocated above the governor's recommendation as fully authorized by appropriation
to this:
move $5,000 to the governor daily
That's ridiculous, right? You have to veto a provision, or at least a clause, not a bunch of individual letters. What's going on here?
UPDATE: It turns out this is not only legal but common. It makes no sense, but the story is here.
This can't be legal, and I'm sure will be challenged in court very shortly. I imagine Evers did it as a simple political stunt, knowing it won't stand.
This is almost certainly legal, unless the Wisconsin Supreme Court wants to overrule extensive and explicit precedent that allows the governor to strike individual letters and mash words together. One instance became known as the Vanna White veto, in which Gov. Tony Earl turned a five sentence, 121 word paragraph into a single sentence, 22 word paragraph. The vetoed text was an incoherent string of individual letters.
The purpose, the Court has ruled, of the partial veto (which is not the same thing as a line item veto) is to force the legislature to include the governor in its budget negotiations. Allowing the governor to turn an appropriations bill in complete hash is the intent of the constitutional provision. If the legislature freezes the governor out of budget discussions, this is what they get.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lrb/reading_the_constitution/reading_the_constitution_4_1.pdf
But this can't possibly be legal, can it?
Uhh, yeah it is. Governors in Wisconsin have a lot of power and the use of the line-item veto (remember when Republicans used to be all gaga over the line-item veto?) in this fashion has been done before by governors of both parties. Now that line-item has been restricted over the years in some egregious cases by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Maybe the court will in this case as well when they begin their new term in August. But, just remember, the liberal faction is now running the show and they may not restrict the governor's veto power the way other courts have done in the past.
And considering the extreme gerrymandering of the state legislature, I don't feel the least bit sorry for them.
It was some years ago and I don’t remember the details, but WA Gov Dan Evans once used a line item veto to strike the word “not” from a bill. Washington did away with the line item veto not long afterword.
I've long been of the view that the executive veto is a mistake. Let the legislative branch legislate and the executive branch execute, and don't mix the two.
That's part of the whole checks and balances that are supposed to keep any one of the branches from becoming too powerful.
I make $100h while I’m courageous to the most distant corners of the planet. Last week I worked on my PC in Rome, Monti Carlo at the long final in Paris. This week I’m back inside the USA. All I do fundamental errands from this one cool area see it. For more information,
Click on the link below… https://GetDreamJobs1.blogspot.com
The linked article says the veto can’t create new words out of letters, so, Kevin’s example isn’t possible.
This opinion followed a 1990 constitutional amendment that had restricted the use of the partial veto so that governors "may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill." This amendment ended a practice — known as the "Vanna White" veto — that had begun under Democratic Gov. Tony Earl and continued under Thompson.
More recently, a 2008 constitutional amendment ratified by Wisconsin voters disallowed the so-called Frankenstein veto, or "crossing out words and numbers to create a new sentence from two or more sentences."
Even considering these amendments, Wisconsin governors remain able to cross out words and digits within a sentence — so long as they do not create new words — and maintain most expansive partial veto power in the nation.
Kevin’s example isn’t possible. You can’t create new words. You can’t create new sentences either. You can modify numbers and reduce the length or number of sentences, which is what Evers did. It seems stupid, but both Republicans and Democrats have wielded it in Wisconsin for a century with little to no comment from the national media until now. If it weren’t for the 4 centuries - which the WI Supreme Court or the next WI budget will likely overturn since each budget is only supposed to last 2 years - this isn’t even the most egregious example: Republican governors have used it to expand funding and tax credits by billions less or more than what the legislature intended.
both Republicans and Democrats have wielded it in Wisconsin for a century with little to no comment from the national media until now.
Baloney they have. Extreme examples pop up occasionally and the national media goes nuts over them. Just because you didn't notice doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Republicans have dirty-tricked and hobbled Gov Evers since he was first elected. Legal or not, now they're getting back some of their own. Wah! Wah! Waaaaaaah!
Leftists change the law for short sighted goals; are then upset when the opposition takes up the idea and runs with it?
Tale as old as time, and yet leftists NEVER FSCKING LEARN from it! You can warn them repeatedly how their latest shiny idea will blow up in their faces within 20 years and they’ll repay you with a torrent of invective.
Truly those who refuse to learn from history…
You seem confused about who's pulling this stunt this time.
Which I guess is natural. You're probably marinated in right-wing media, where a piece like this would necessarily involve a governor from the other party.