Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is currently deliberating over Governor’s 400-year veto – a move described as ‘crazy.’ Justices voiced their concerns on Wednesday regarding Governor Tony Evers’ unconventional use of his extensive veto power to secure a school funding increase for an astonishing 400 years, deeming it as “extreme.” The court pondered on the necessity of restraining such powers and questioned the appropriate course of action to take in this unique scenario.
During the oral arguments, Justice Jill Karofsky highlighted the potential limitless nature of the governor’s veto powers, expressing the need to reconsider the current framework in 2024. The ongoing case, backed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, represents a longstanding debate over the boundaries of a governor’s partial veto powers in Wisconsin, transcending party lines.
Governor Evers exercised this remarkable veto power in 2023 by enhancing the revenue that K-12 public schools could generate per student by $325 annually until 2425. By altering the original language, Evers extended the duration to 2425, spanning over four centuries. Legal experts, including attorney Scott Rosenow, representing the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center, argued against the constitutionality of Evers’ veto, citing concerns over overreach and the distortion of legislative intent.
The Supreme Court’s liberal majority, in a 4-3 split, will issue a final ruling in the coming months, tackling the historic partial veto power granted by a 1930 constitutional amendment. The progressive erosion of this power over time through constitutional amendments in 1990 and 2008, aimed at curbing abuses like the ‘Vanna White’ and ‘Frankenstein’ vetoes, has set the stage for this current legal battle.
Governor Evers’ defence hinges on the interpretation of the veto prohibitions, claiming that his actions lay within the confines of the law. The ongoing power struggle between the governor and the Legislature through veto manipulation has been a hallmark of Wisconsin politics, with no clear consensus on the acceptable extent of these powers. The case underscores the need for clarity and boundaries in the exercise of veto powers to prevent potential abuses and uphold the democratic process.