Connect with us

Wisconsin

Wisconsin's partial veto has stood for nearly a century. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will give it another look.

Published

on

Wisconsin's partial veto has stood for nearly a century. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will give it another look.


While dozens of other states have line-item vetoes, Wisconsin stands alone when it comes to the power it gives its governors through what’s known as the partial veto. Now, it’s up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether it stays that way.

The state’s partial veto dates back to 1930, when concerns about state lawmakers adding multiple appropriation and policy items into what are known as omnibus bills came to a head. The Wisconsin Constitution was amended to give more power to governors to reject those items, one by one.

“Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law,” the new amendment read. 

Stay informed on the latest news

Sign up for WPR’s email newsletter.

Advertisement

According to a study by the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, proponents believed governors needed a check on the new budgeting process. But opponents worried giving governors more veto authority extended the already broad powers of the executive branch.

When he was campaigning for governor, Phillip La Follette said the proposal to expand veto powers “smack[ed] of dictatorship.” The amendment was approved by around 62 percent of voters in 1930, and after he was elected, La Follette became the first governor to use it.

Nine times, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has heard challenges to the partial veto. The case now pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court will make it an even ten.

Advertisement
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, Wis. Angela Major/WPR

Evers used partial veto to extend school funding increase for 400 years

The latest challenge focuses on Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto in the last state budget, which extended a school funding increase through the year 2425. It’s the latest of many attempts to restrict a veto power that a federal judge once described as “quirky.”

Evers’ partial veto last summer caught the Republican-controlled Legislature by surprise. By crossing out a 20 and a dash before he signed the state’s two-year budget, Evers authorized school districts to collect additional property taxes to fund a $325 per-pupil increase for more than 400 years. The Legislature intended the increase to expire in two years. 

Republican lawmakers were outraged. The GOP-controlled Wisconsin Senate voted to override Evers’ veto, but the Assembly never followed suit. 

The challenge the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear Monday, which was brought by the business lobbying group Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, alleges Evers’ veto violates the state’s constitution. The first legal briefs are due by July 16.

Democratic and Republican governors have used partial vetoes extensively

Evers’ latest veto received national attention, but he was hardly the first Wisconsin governor to push the limits of the unique power.

Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker struck individual digits from dates written in the 2017 state budget to change a one-year moratorium on school referendums aimed at raising taxes for energy efficiency projects into a 1,000-year moratorium. The Supreme Court’s former conservative majority threw out a challenge to Walker’s veto because it was filed too late.

Advertisement

Former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle used his partial veto to combine parts of unrelated sentences in the 2005 budget to move more than $400 million from the state’s transportation fund into the general fund. That led to a constitutional amendment in 2008 at preventing future governors from using what became known as the “Frankenstein Veto.” 

With his first state budget in 1987, former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson partially struck phrases, digits, letters and word fragments, using what was known as the “Vanna White” veto, to create new sentences and fiscal figures. The Supreme Court upheld Thompson’s partial veto, but in 1990, voters approved a constitutional amendment specifying that governors cannot create new words by striking individual letters. 

Gov. Tommy Thompson smiles during an interview
Gov. Tommy Thompson smiles during an interview in his office in the state Capitol on Thursday, Nov. 5, 1998, in Madison, Wis. Andy Manis/AP Photo

University of Wisconsin Law School State Democracy Research Initiative Attorney Bryna Godar told WPR governors have gotten creative with how they’ve used partial vetoes, “but we now have this very long standing practice that is really codified in state law.” 

Godar said even the constitutional amendments aimed at restricting a governor’s partial veto powers were — in some way — a stamp of approval from the Legislature.

“They didn’t completely do away with this,” Godar said. “If people really wanted that, you could argue that they could have amended the constitution to completely do away with this type of partial veto.”

Godar said it’s possible that current lawmakers don’t want to restrict partial veto powers too much in case the current political power structure of the Legislature and Governor’s office switch in the future. 

Advertisement

Until 2020, Supreme Court generally allowed partial vetoes to stand

For as long as Wisconsin has had a partial veto, there have been lawsuits about how governors have used it.

The first came in 1935 and challenged the governor’s partial veto of an emergency relief bill, which approved funds but struck provisions related to how the Legislature wanted the money to be spent. The court upheld the partial veto so long as the remaining language equates to “a complete, entire, and workable law.”

Future courts upheld partial vetoes in 1936, 1940, 1976, 1978, 1988, 1995 and 1997. 

Things changed in 2020 when three of four partial vetoes by Evers in the 2019 state budget were struck down by the Supreme Court’s former conservative majority. But instead of a single majority opinion, the court issued what’s known as a fractured ruling. There were four opinions issued by justices that provided different tests for whether a partial veto can be constitutional.

Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative swing vote on the court
Conservative Justices Brian Hagedorn and Rebecca Bradley hear arguments in the Supreme Court Hearing Room in Madison, Wis., on Dec. 1, 2022. Coburn Dukehart/Wisconsin Watch

“Those vetoes in that case were pretty in line with what governors from either party have done in prior decades,” Godar said. “They weren’t a significant departure from how this has been used in the past, but the court struck down three of them.”

But not having a “unified majority opinion” in the 2020 case, Godar said the court didn’t offer clear reasoning on how governors can use the partial veto in the future. But that could change in the latest case challenging Evers’ veto.

Advertisement

“I am really curious to see how the court rules in this case,” Godar said. “Because I think they will tell us a lot about what type of partial veto we will have going forward, and if it will continue to be this pretty broad, granular veto, or if it will be more based on subject matter.” 

Looking at the big picture, Godar said the question is whether the legislative and executive branches are “striking the right balance” of power. 

“And so, it is ultimately up to the Legislature and the people if they want to restrict it more significantly, which they could do in the future,” Godar said. 

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are pushing for another constitutional amendment in reaction to Evers’ latest veto. Earlier this year, the Legislature passed a proposed amendment aimed at keeping future governors from using the partial veto pen to “create or increase or authorize the creation or increase of any tax or fee.”

Before the new language can be added to the constitution, the measure must pass the full Legislature during the next legislative session and be approved by voters in a statewide referendum.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Wisconsin

Game 12 Wisconsin football two-deep for Minnesota Gophers game Nov. 29 at Camp Randall Stadium

Published

on

Game 12 Wisconsin football two-deep for Minnesota Gophers game Nov. 29 at Camp Randall Stadium


MADISON – A look at the unofficial two-deep for the Wisconsin football team heading into its game against Minnesota at 11 a.m. Friday at Camp Randall Stadium.

OFFENSE

Quarterback

1 – Braedyn Locke, 6-1, 205, redshirt-soph.

2 – Mabrey Mettauer, 6-4, 230, fr.

Advertisement

Running back

1 – Tawee Walker, 5-9, 218, sr.

2 – Darrion Dupree, 5-10, 205, fr.

Receiver

1 – Bryson Green, 6-3, 213, sr.

2 – C.J. Williams, 6-2, 196, jr.

Receiver

1 – Vinny Anthony II, 6-0, 188, jr.

Advertisement

2 – Quincy Burroughs, 6-2, 212, r-soph.

Slot recever

1 – Will Pauling, 5-10, 187, r-jr.

2 – Trech Kekahuna, 5-10, 187, r-fr.

Tight end

1 – Riley Nowakowski, 6-1, 243, r-sr.

2 – Tucker Ashcraft, 6-5, 255, soph.

Advertisement

Left tackle

1 – Jack Nelson, 6-7, 316, sr.

2 – Barrett Nelson, 6-6, 302, r-soph.

Left guard

1 – Joe Brunner, 6-5, 313- r-soph.

2. – James Durand, 6-5, 305, r-fr.

Advertisement

Center

1 – Jake Renfro, 6-3, 302, r-sr.

2. – Kerry Kodanko, 6-2, 308, r-sr.

Right guard

1 – Joe Huber, 6-5, 310, r-sr.

2 – JP Benzschawel, 6-6, 312, r-jr.

Right tackle

1 – Riley Mahlman, 6-8, 308, r-jr.

Advertisement

2 – Kevin Heywood, 6-8, 325, fr.

DEFENSE

Line

1 – Ben Barten, 6-5, 308, r-sr.

2 – Elijah Hills, 6-3, 282, sr.

Advertisement

Line

1 – Curt Neal, 6-0, 290, r-soph.

2 – Cade McDonald, 6-6, 285, r-sr.

Outside linebacker

1 – Darryl Peterson, 6-1, 248, r-jr.

2 – Aaron Witt, 6-6, 247, r-jr.

Inside linebacker

1 – Jake Chaney, 5-11, 233, sr.

Advertisement

2 – Tackett Curtis, 6-2, 228, soph.

Inside linebacker

1 – Christian Alliegro, 6-4, 240, soph.

2 – Jaheim Thomas, 6-4, 245, r-sr.

Outside linebacker

1 – Leon Lowery, 6-3, 252, r-sr.

2 – Sebastian Cheeks, 6-3, 230, r-soph., or John Pius, 6-4, 250, r-sr.

Advertisement

Cornerback

1 – Ricardo Hallman, 5-10, 185, r-jr.

2 – R.J. Delancy III, 5-11, 193, r-sr., or Jonas Duclona, 5-10, 190, soph.

Strong safety

1 – Hunter Wohler, 6-2, 218, sr.

2 – Owen Arnett, 5-11, 210, r-jr.

Free safety

1 – Preston Zachman, 6-1, 212, r-sr.

Advertisement

2 – Austin Brown, 6-1, 210, jr.

Cornerback

1 – Nyzier Fourqurean, 6-1, 190, r-sr.

2 – R.J. Delancy, 5-11, 193, r-sr., or Xavier Lucas, 6-2, 198, fr.

Nickel back

1 – Austin Brown, 6-1, 210, jr.

2 – Max Lofy, 5-10, 188, r-sr.

Advertisement

SPECIAL TEAMS

Punter

1 – Atticus Bertrams, 6-3, 225, soph.

2 – Gavin Meyers, 6-1, 198, r-sr.

Field goal kicker

1 – Nathanial Vakos, 6-1, 205, jr.

2 – Gavin Lahm, 6-0, 213, jr.

Kickoffs

1 – Gavin Lahm, 6-10, 213, jr.

Advertisement

2 – Nathanial Vakos, 6-1, 205, jr.

Long snapper

1 – Cayson Pfeiffer, 6-0, 205, sr.

2 – Duncan McKinley, 6-2, 222, r-sr.

Holder

1 – Gavin Meyers, 6-1, 198, r-sr.

2 – Atticus Bertrams, 6-2, 225, soph.

Advertisement

Punt returner

1 – Vinny Anthony II, 6-0, 188, jr.

2 – Hunter Wohler, 6-2, 218, sr.

Kickoff returner

1 – Vinny Anthony II, 6-0, 188, jr.

2 – Trech Kekahuna, 5-10, 197, r-fr.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Where Wisconsin's class of 2025 ranks nationally after big-time addition of QB Carter Smith

Published

on

Where Wisconsin's class of 2025 ranks nationally after big-time addition of QB Carter Smith


Wisconsin football’s recruiting performance is far better than the current on-field product, to say the least.

Luke Fickell’s team has now lost four straight games after Saturday’s 44-25 defeat at Nebraska. It is just 5-6 on the season and 3-5 in Big Ten play, desperately needing a season-closing victory over Minnesota to clinch bowl eligibility.

There is more context behind that on-field performance, including the recent firing of offensive coordinator Phil Longo and historic blowout losses to rivals Iowa and Nebraska sandwiching hard-fought losses to top-ranked teams. That context doesn’t help the general trend of poor play.

But for those still optimistic about the Badgers’ future under Luke Fickell, the biggest calling card is his recruiting performance.

Advertisement

Wisconsin made headlines on Sunday when it landed a commitment from four-star class of 2025 quarterback Carter Smith. Smith is ranked as 247Sports’ No. 15 quarterback in the class and No. 164 overall player. Beating Florida State for his commitment was a statement for Fickell and his staff — even doing so after firing Longo just seven days earlier.

The addition of Smith brings Wisconsin’s class of 2025 to 25 total commitments — eight of which coming from blue-chip players. Notably, it rose the group four spots up to No. 21 in 247Sports’ national rankings.

The Badgers now boast the eighth-highest-rated class in the Big Ten, trailing just Ohio State (No. 2 overall), Oregon (No. 8), Michigan (No. 9), USC (No. 11), Penn State (No. 15), Washington (No. 18) and Nebraska (No. 20). The No. 21 ranking is an impressive follow-up after Luke Fickell finished the 2024 class with 247Sports’ No. 25 overall class and a Blue-Chip Ratio of 50%.

Smith’s addition continues a growing debate about how to weigh Wisconsin’s on-field struggles with its recruiting success. In reality, the 2025 football season will be somewhat defined by the performance of the 2024 recruiting class and another crop of transfers. If that strong recruiting doesn’t lead to improved on-field play, the clock may start ticking on his tenure.

Contact/Follow @TheBadgersWire on X (formerly Twitter), and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes, and opinion.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Takeaways from No.19 Wisconsin's 81-75 Win Over Pittsburgh

Published

on

Takeaways from No.19 Wisconsin's 81-75 Win Over Pittsburgh


WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. – The news was positive every time Wisconsin head coach Greg Gard got the analytical report from video coordinator A.J. Van Handel, even though the results on the court were not. Despite some early flaws guarding back cuts and allowing dribble penetration, the Badgers were holding Pittsburgh under a point per possession. He just needed Wisconsin to take and make some better shots.

That, and John Tonje hoisting the Badgers on his back and carrying them over the finish line.

The resilience, toughness, and guts of the No.19 Wisconsin was on full display in front of a packed Colonial Hall at the Greenbrier Resort, as the Badgers got 33 points from Tonje and sound offensive execution in the second half to erase a 14-pint deficit in an 81-75 victory over Pittsburgh.

It’s the third November championship for Wisconsin (7-0) in the past four seasons and a victory that could serve as a springboard in the coming weeks, not to mention a nice thing to show the selection committee in four months.

Advertisement

Here are my takeaways from the foothills of the Alleghany Mountains.

Tonje Led The Second Half Charge

Tonje said that he hopes to live in Madison when he’s retired from playing basketball. At the rate he’s going, he might have to come back anyway for his jersey retirement.

Tonje was the hero again for Wisconsin and treated as such, going into the crowd to celebrate with the vocal fan base that made the trip and mobbed by his teammates while waiting to do his postgame television interview. It was the only time anybody got the better of him after halftime.

Advertisement

Shaking off a 2-for-8 start, Tonje was 9-for-11 in the second half. He was 6-for-6 from the line, relentlessly going inside and getting rewarded because Pittsburgh kept reaching. Knowing the primary defenders on him were starting to rack up fouls, and that the Panthers haven’t shown to be a particularly deep team to this point, Tonje kept his head down and kept attacking.

“I was trying to be aggressive from the start,” said Tonje, who made all nine of his two-point shots in the second half, most coming at the rim or in the paint. “I didn’t shoot the ball well early, but I just kept with it. My coaches and teammates believed in me. I stayed with it and did everything I can in my power to get the win.”

After falling into the trap of taking quick shots or long-range jumpers, a problem that plagued the Badgers last season, Wisconsin found the gaps in Pittsburgh defense. UW scored 54 points in the second half, registered points on 83.3 percent of its possessions, and averaged a robust 1.8 points per possession.

“I don’t think we started the second half with the type of force that’s necessary,” Pittsburgh coach Jeff Capel said. “We allowed them to climb back into the game and really get into a great rhythm offensively, and then they just became really tough to guard … Their physicality wore us down.”

Tonje scored 25 of the second-half points but he had help. Kamari McGee scored eight of his 10 points in the last half and hit all three of his shots, including a pair of clutch three-pointers that were timely in the final six-plus minutes, one giving UW the lead and another extended it to four with 2:54 to go.

Advertisement

“We kept at it,” said John Blackwell (14 points). “We kept getting to the rim (and) stayed aggressive. Obviously, our shots weren’t falling in the first half, but we didn’t quit. We told ourselves at halftime just keep going. The shots are going to fall. We trusted each other.

“JT did his thing by getting to the rim, doing what he do best.”

Named the tournament’s most valuable player, Tonje averaged 24.0 points and 6.5 rebounds per game over UW’s two wins.

“He just drives and throws his body around,” Capel said of Tonje, one of only six players nationally to have two 30-point games this season. “We weren’t able to sustain the discipline required to guard someone like that. You can’t reach. He does a really good job of getting his body into yours. He’s really strong with the ball. He exposes it. You think you can swipe, and he gets a great whistle, and he’s earned that because it’s consistent.”

Wisconsin Is Handling Top Guard Play

McGee said Friday that the close call against UTRGV Monday was not a wake-up call for the Badgers, only that it emphasized the need to be better polished in defensive areas. Call it what you want, but the Badgers’ defense took a major step in slowing down guard play in West Virginia.

Advertisement

Pittsburgh’s backcourt of Ishmael Leggett and Jaland Lowe averaged 33.2 points, 12.4 rebounds, 8.0 assists, and 4.5 steals per game. They combined for 43 points, 14 rebounds, seven assists, and eight steals in Friday’s win over LSU. They managed 33 points on 32 shots.

“I just tried to match his energy,” Blackwell said of guarding Leggett, who finished 6-for-15 and 0-for-4 from three. “I know he picked up some quick fouls and he sat. All I can do is try to match his energy, because he’s a great player.”

The Badgers also took away Lowe’s ability to cleanly pass the ball. He finished with five assists but committed four turnovers.

“If we can guard ball screens as much as possible two on two and not have to send quite as much help, we knew we were going to have to plug the paint,” Gard said of the plan for Lowe.“Try to force him into some mid-range stuff. I didn’t think we were good at it early. He got loose on us, pinched us off, and got a couple lobs to Corhen, but I thought we got better with the back side of bumping the roller and plugging the lane. We forced him into some tougher shots.”

Wisconsin caught a break when Damian Dunn (13.0 ppg, .526 3FG) rolled his ankle and injured his hand two minutes into the game and didn’t return. Freshman guard Brandin Cummings replaced him and managed only two points.

Advertisement

With how poorly Wisconsin’s offense was in the first half (36.7 percent, .794 points per possession), the Badgers leaning into their defense was critical.

“We have to give all credit to the coaches,” Blackwell said. “They prepared us well to know what their tendencies are, what they like to do. We just trust each other. Our bigs got our back if they get past us with good wall ups. We just trust our technique.”

Frustrating opposing guards has become a common theme.Arizona preseason All-American Caleb Love generated more technical fouls than made three-pointers against UW’s guards. He finished 2-for-13 from the floor and scored six points before fouling out

In Friday’s semifinals against UCF, which possessed a guard trio of Jordan Ivy-Curry, Keyshawn Hall, and Darius Johnson that scored 62.4 percent of its points, the Badgers’ ability to challenge them with movement and spacing held the group to 9-for-36 from the floor.

Wisconsin Showed Growth vs Physical Rebounders 

The Panthers have proven to be one of the better rebounding teams in the country in the season’s first month. Having won the rebounding battle in five of its first six games, Pitt wasaveraging 41.2 rebounds per game, was 21st nationally in defensive rebounds (30.83) and had four players averaging at least 6.0 rebounds per game.

Advertisement

They took the Badgers to task in the first half. Finishing the first half plus-four on the glass, Pitt’s first 11 points were all on actions toward the rim, mostly on back cuts behind UW’s defense, dribble actions where a Pitt player hit the cutter, or a guard attacking the paint to hit an open pull-up jumper.

Even after reserve forward Zack Austin switched things up with a three-pointer, Pittsburgh went right back to the post with an alley-oop and multiple driving layups. The 6-10 Cameron Corhen was the biggest benefactor of UW’s lapse defense, as the 68.0 percent FG shooter had 11 points on 5-for-6 shooting in the opening half.

Wisconsin 2-for-10 to start and was largely absent in the glass when shots went up. UW started 0-for-5 from the perimeter and most attempts didn’t have a red jersey close to the rim. UW’s first offensive rebound came at the 10:54 mark, but the possession ended with Blackwell airballing a three-pointer with the shot clock about to expire, a possession that didn’t include a post touch.

Wisconsin was averaging .533 points on its first 15 possessions. UW raised it modestly at halftime because Blackwell, McGee, Tonje, and Nolan Winter (11 points) started getting to the rim and converting.

The inability to match a team’s frontcourt physicality has been an underlining theme when the Badgers have faced Power-Four schools. Arizona outrebounded UW, 52-28, including 24-2 on the offensive glass, and gave up 13 boards to forward Tobe Awaka.

Advertisement

UCF wasn’t nearly as big as Arizona, but the Knights still outrebounded Wisconsin, 41-39, with all 11 players getting at least one offensive rebound.

Things flipped in the second half. Senior Steven Crowl (6 points, season-high 9 rebounds, 3 assists) helped draw two quick fouls on Corhen, sending him to the bench for five-and-a-half minutes of the second half. He attempted only two shots in the final 12:51 after he returned.

With Corhen out and Guillermo Diaz Graham at the five, Wisconsin’s low-post offense ran more efficiently by creatingmore lanes for Tonje to attack and more space to attack the glass. After getting only two offensive rebounds in the first half, the Badgers had nine in the second half that led to 11 second-chance points.

“Once we got rolling in the second half we went to him quite a bit,” Gard said on Crowl. “I liked his physicality on Corhen. That’s one thing I felt Steve’s advantage was on Corhen on both ends of the floor was he could be physical. Corhen is a really good player but a little lighter than Steve. To be able to keep a big body on Corhen, and when we got him in foul trouble, we were able to go at the rim a little bit more with everybody else.”

Lengthy Delays

The championship game was scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. eastern, roughly 30 minutes following the conclusion of the third-place game between LSU and UCF. The Knights’ collapse made the evening a waiting game.

Advertisement

UCF led by 20 in the first half, 18 with 12:57 left, and 14 with 8:31 to go, but ended up losing, 106-102, in triple overtime.

When the teams finally took the court, went through introductions, and were ready to start, one of the electronic game-and-shot clocks above the basket shorted out. Unable to restart the system, or find a long enough extension cord, officials agreed to shut off the working shot clock to even the playing field.

Throw in the jump ball needing to be done twice after a Pitt player jumped the gun, the game didn’t officially start until 6:43 local time, an hour, 13 minutes late.

That delayed doesn’t account for the two brief stoppages in play in the second half when the bank of lights that illuminated center court kept flickering on and off.

“I thought we handled all the adversity well,” Capel said. “What we didn’t handle was Tonje.”

Advertisement

By The Numbers

6 – Wisconsin turned the ball over just six times, including only two in the second half. Averaging 9.4 turnovers per game, Wisconsin has had fewer than 10 turnovers in four games.

17.5 – The Badgers held Pittsburgh to 5-for-23 (21.7) from three-point range and held their two Power-Four Conference opponents to 7-for-40 (17.5) on threes.

30 – After scoring just eight points in the first 10 minutes, the Badgers scored 73 in the final 30 minutes.

60 – Tonje has made 60 free throws this season to lead all Division 1 players. His 63 attempts are tops in the Big Ten and tied for fourth nationally. He’s the first UW player since Brad Davison (2017-18) to have made at least 10 free throws in three games.

300 – Gard coached his 300th game on Sunday, the fourth-most games of any coach in Wisconsin history. He improved his record to 193-107 (.643) overall and 72-22 (.766) in regular season nonconference games.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending