{"id":12789,"date":"2024-09-18T17:11:50","date_gmt":"2024-09-18T17:11:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=12789"},"modified":"2024-09-18T17:58:45","modified_gmt":"2024-09-18T17:58:45","slug":"will-warns-wi-supreme-court-not-to-legitimize-arbitrary-executive-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wifamily.news\/?p=12789","title":{"rendered":"WILL Warns WI Supreme Court Not to Legitimize Arbitrary Executive Power"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared at https:\/\/will-law.org\/will-warns-wi-supreme-court-not-to-legitimize-arbitrary-executive-power\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The News<\/b>: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) has filed an amicus brief in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the Brown County Taxpayers Association. Governor Evers attempted to alter a bill that authorized increases to the property tax levy limit for school districts. Among other things, he rejected the alphanumeric characters in red below:<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\"\"<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n

\n
\n

If permissible, the law will read: \u201cFor the limit for 2023-2425, add $325.\u201d A policy will be codified that increases levy limits for hundreds of years even though the legislature did not approve an increase past the 2024-25 school year.<\/p>\n

WILL argues that governors do not have the power to arbitrarily re-write budget bills. WILL believes no executive should have such power.<\/p>\n

The Quotes: <\/b>WILL Associate Counsel, Skylar Croy, stated, \u201cThe abuse of the partial veto is not just dangerous and unconstitutional, but bad policy. No executive should have the power to singlehandedly manipulate bills into something entirely beyond the legislature\u2019s intentions. Continuing to operate this way will create negative consequences far into the future.\u201d<\/p>\n

Additional Background:\u00a0<\/b>The Wisconsin Constitution does delegate a limited partial veto power to the governor, stating:\u202f\u201cAppropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.\u201d However, a \u201cpart\u201d refers to an a \u201cpart\u201d of the policy proposal in the bill, not the alphanumeric characters. About 100 years ago, when voters (who are also taxpayers) ratified this constitutional provision, they did not understand themselves to be making the governor editor-in-chief of our laws.<\/p>\n

When The Shoe Is On the Other Foot:<\/b> An example WILL cites in its brief: Imagine an appropriation bill that reads, in part, \u201cNo doctor shall perform an abortion after the 14th week of pregnancy.\u201d Under Governor Evers\u2019s argument, he could strike the \u201c1,\u201d banning all abortions after the \u201c4th\u201d week. On the other hand, he could also strike \u201cafter the 14th week of pregnancy,\u201d leaving \u201cno doctor shall perform an abortion\u201d as the entire law.<\/p>\n

These results would not represent anything that the legislature approved, yet Governor Evers thinks he could edit such laws into existence. This is a clear disregard for the separation of powers and undermines the integrity of our governing institutions.<\/p>\n

Read More:\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n