During oral arguments, the comments were made regarding a case that challenges Evers’ partial state budget veto. This veto involved the deletion of specific digits, words, and a dash that allowed school districts to collect additional property taxes.
The purpose of these taxes was to fund a $325 per-pupil funding increase until the year 2425. It is important to note that the budget bill, which was drafted by the Republican-controlled Legislature, originally intended for this increase to expire in 2025.
During the court proceedings, the justices expressed uncertainty on how to address the lawsuit, given the complex interplay of prior Supreme Court decisions and constitutional amendments that have shaped the governor’s broad partial veto powers.
Colin Roth, the attorney representing Evers, acknowledged the court’s skepticism regarding this specific veto but argued that it was in accordance with past precedent.
Roth emphasized that the expansive definition of the constitutional partial veto power, established by the court over the course of more than 100 years, enables the governor to veto appropriation bills in part.
According to Roth, previous court cases have determined that the constitution only requires a “complete and workable law” as the test for a governor’s deletion of budget text.
However, Justice Rebecca Bradley argued that this test was not found in the constitution but was instead created by the court in the past. Roth acknowledged this point but argued that the current lawsuit does not seek to overturn prior case law. To overturn the veto, the court would need to overrule the previous decisions.
Justice Brian Hagedorn disagreed with the idea that there is a coherent body of law and stated that the only test should be whether a governor’s vetoes result in a workable law.
He described the current state of Wisconsin governors’ partial veto powers as a “mess” and suggested that the lawmakers and voters who initially created this power would be shocked by how it has evolved over time.
Hagedorn criticized the court for allowing governors to unilaterally create laws that were not proposed to them, calling it a mess created by the court and highlighting the inconsistency in the body of cases.
According to a legal scholar who filed an amicus brief in the case, Wisconsin’s partial veto power is at a critical juncture. The scholar argues that the state’s Supreme Court is an exception in endorsing extensive partial vetoes.
This brief seemed to have an impact on Justice Jill Karofsky, who leans liberal. She expressed her concerns about the seemingly unlimited power of the 402-year veto, stating that it feels like there are no boundaries and that a decision needs to be made about which path to take.
Roth countered by stating that the justices do have legitimate concerns regarding the extent of the veto power. However, he emphasized that there is no need for the court to alter its previous rulings.
According to Roth, if the Legislature disagrees with a governor’s veto, they have the power to override it. Additionally, lawmakers have the option to propose a constitutional amendment that could potentially limit the scope of veto powers.
Republican lawmakers successfully passed a proposed constitutional amendment this year, which aims to prevent governors from utilizing partial vetoes to implement or increase taxes and fees.
In order for this amendment to be officially approved, it will need to be passed by the Legislature once again in the upcoming session before it can be presented to the public for their final endorsement.
