Gov. Tony Evers signed the 2023-25 budget bill with 51 partial vetoes on July 5, 2023. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Republicans are proposing a constitutional amendment that would restrict the governor’s partial veto power on appropriation bills. 

The lawmakers — Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha), Sens. Cory Tomczyck (R-Mosinee) and Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) — said in a statement that the partial veto power has been “abused” by governors to “twist legislation passed by elected representatives into something that is unrecognizable.” 

“We need a permanent fix to this problem,” the lawmakers stated. 

Wisconsin has one of the strongest partial veto powers for its executive in the country, but it has been limited several times across history. 

The ability to exercise the “Vanna White” veto — eliminating single letters within words — was barred in 1990 by a constitutional amendment. Another constitutional amendment passed in 2008 eliminated the “Frankenstein veto” —  the ability for governors to create new sentences by combining parts of two or more sentences.

In 2020, a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled three of Evers’ partial vetoes unconstitutional, limiting the power further. There still is no consensus about the extent of the power.

Currently, the state Constitution says that the veto 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.” This would be replaced, under the current proposal, to say the governor may “only reject one or more entire bill sections.” 

Allen said during a press conference that the proposal would return the state to the “original intent” of the veto power. He pointed to a Legislative Reference Bureau report that states “there is no evidence that the partial veto power was originally intended to allow the governor to fashion new words or sentences or to embark on new policy directions not intended by the Legislature. The partial veto was intended to be a check on the Legislature, not a means for the governor to rewrite legislation.”

The attempt to limit the power comes after Evers used it last session to extend school funding increases for 400 years — a move that Republicans criticized as overstepping his power.

The Court has taken a case considering the veto. Republican lawmakers pointed to a comment by Justice Jill Karofsky during arguments, in which she said, “It does feel like the sky’s the limit, and perhaps today, we are at that fork in the road, and… we’re trying to think, like, should we today in 2024 start to look at this differently?”

Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback said in a statement about the proposal that “it says a lot about Republicans’ priorities that they are attempting to put yet another Republican-drafted and Republican-backed constitutional amendment on the ballot while they refuse to give the people of Wisconsin that same opportunity.”

Evers has criticized Republican lawmakers for repeatedly legislating by constitutional amendment and has proposed implementing a citizen ballot initiative in Wisconsin to allow voters to amend the law without input from lawmakers. 

“Republicans’ message to the people of Wisconsin is clear: power for me but not for thee,” Cudaback said. “If Republican lawmakers are going to continue ignoring the will of the people and legislating by constitutional amendment, then they should approve Gov. Evers’ plan to give the people of Wisconsin the power to pass policies by a majority vote at the ballot box.”

When it comes to ongoing use of the amendment process, Allen said, “the Constitution gives us the power to amend. It specifically calls on the Legislature to amend the Constitution.” 

When it comes to citizen-led initiatives, Allen noted that he lived in California for four years and said it can be “very intimidating” to receive information about ballot initiatives. He said that he thinks the current process of passing legislation “works quite well.” 

“What we don’t want to do is we don’t want to discourage people from voting, so I think that the process is designed — in a democratic republic like we have — where citizens want to see law changes, they talk to their representatives,” Allen said.

As a constitutional amendment, the lawmakers’ proposal would need to pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before going to voters, who would decide whether to ratify it. 

This is the second constitutional amendment  lawmakers have proposed in recent years to curb the governor’s veto power. One passed the Legislature last session that intends to prevent the governor “from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee” using the partial veto.

Allen said the new proposal encompasses the issue the tax-related proposal was seeking to address, but that lawmakers “may be interested” in putting both measures before voters.