submitted 1 month ago by Wilshire to c/politics
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 47 points 1 month ago

Important bit:

Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and instead vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.

Okay, hats off for the creative use of a veto, but that's a fucking stupid power for a governor to have.

[-] ProfessorScience 25 points 1 month ago

It is, and I'm fine with Evers using it to either secure school funding, or have the courts codify what the limits of the veto powers are.

[-] ProfessorScience 11 points 1 month ago

I was curious, so I looked up the amended wording, which is

(b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.

(c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.

I guess I don't know how strictly laws are usually interpreted with respect to the distinction between letters in words vs digits in numbers, but I think I would expect the court to rule against Evers here; striking digits seems to be clearly against the spirit of the amendment. On the flip side, though, the partial veto has enough of an established history of gamesmanship that I would also buy the argument that an amendment intended to ban striking digits should be expected to spell that out.

[-] ProfessorScience 7 points 1 month ago

To reply to myself again as I keep going down this rabbit hole, the opinion in Citizens Utility Board v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995) includes

Thus, the amendment as ratified by the citizenry only limits the governor's veto of letters and keeps intact the Wisconsin Senate conclusion that the governor has the authority to "reduce or eliminate numbers and amounts of appropriations" and exercise a "partial veto resulting in a reduction in an appropriation."

A "reduction in appropriation" is clearly not what happened here, but the distinction between letters and numbers is apparently, at least in the opinion for this case, intentional.

[-] ilinamorato 1 points 1 month ago

Exactly. Any possible outcome is completely win-win.

[-] fluxion 14 points 1 month ago

Okay, but that's a power for a governor to have.


[-] stoly 4 points 1 month ago

Nice 3D chess move.

[-] elbarto777 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's a stupid power indeed. How is this even acceptable? I mean, how could anyone working with the governor say "oh yeah, that veto is valid" without question or protest?

Can you imagine?

"This bill states that we will not use the death penalty to jaywalkers."

And in comes the governor vetoing the "not." Like, what the fuck?

Fucking incompetents.

Edit: and I commend the governor's intention to make sure that schools are funded. But this is not the way. Have Republicans done bullshit like this in the past? It's the only way I can think of as to why he did this.

[-] bostonbananarama 25 points 1 month ago

I think line item vetoes are a bit ridiculous to begin with, but no one should be able to change 2025 to 2425 with veto powers.

[-] humorlessrepost 15 points 1 month ago

Then let this guy play the Satanic Temple strategy and get line item veto power restricted or removed because the other side screams “no, not like that!”

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

The GOP has shown open willingness to handicap Dem governors and then roll those handicaps back as soon as they get a GOP governor.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

They wouldn't be able to do that with a Supreme Court decision

[-] almar_quigley 12 points 1 month ago

My sweet summer child

[-] FuglyDuck 6 points 1 month ago

Roe v Wade is exactly that.

[-] newthrowaway20 1 points 1 month ago

Didn't we just watch the supreme Court do exactly that?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Attorneys with Wisconsin’s largest business lobbying group asked the state Supreme Court on Monday to strike down Democratic Gov.

At issue is a partial veto Evers made of the state budget in July that increased how much revenue K-12 public schools can raise per student by $325 a year until 2425.

Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and instead vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.

Numerous court decisions have also narrowed the governor’s veto power, which has drawn bipartisan support and criticism for decades.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, then controlled by conservatives, undid three of Evers’ partial vetoes in 2020, but a majority of justices did not issue clear guidance on what was allowed.

“No Wisconsin governor has the authority to strike individual letters or digits to form a new word or number, except when reducing appropriations,” WMC Litigation Center Executive Director Scott Rosenow said in a statement.

The original article contains 589 words, the summary contains 170 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
88 points (97.8% liked)


17792 readers
3962 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!


  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:


World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 11 months ago