Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed a victory to the Republican-controlled Legislature on Wednesday in a power struggle with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.
The court, in a unanimous ruling where the four liberal justices joined with three conservatives, struck down Evers' partial veto of a Republican bill in a case that tested both the limits of his broad veto powers and the Legislature's ability to exert influence by controlling funding.
The court also ruled that the Legislature can put money for certain state programs into an emergency fund under the control of its budget committee. Evers had argued such a move was unconstitutional.
The ruling against Evers comes after the court earlier this year upheld Evers' partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for 400 years. The court last year issued a ruling that reined in some powers of the Legislature's budget committee, while this ruling went the other way.
Evers clashes with Legislature
Evers, in his seventh year as governor, has frequently clashed with the Legislature and often used his broad veto powers to kill their proposals. Republican lawmakers have tried to take control away from the governor's office by placing money to fund certain programs and state agencies in an emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That gives the Legislature significant influence over that funding and the implementation of certain programs within the executive branch.
Evers argued that the Legislature is trying to limit his partial veto power and illegally control how the executive branch spends money.
The state Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed.
It ruled that Evers improperly used his partial veto on a bill that detailed the plan for spending on new literacy programs designed to improve K-12 students' reading performance. The court also sided with the Legislature and said the budget committee can legally put money into an emergency fund to be distributed later. That is what it has done with the $50 million for the literacy program.
Evers and Republican lawmakers did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
Fight over literacy funding
In 2023, Evers signed into law a bill that created an early literacy coaching program within the state Department of Public Instruction. The bill also created grants for schools that adopt approved reading curricula to pay for changing their programs and to train teachers on the new practices.
However, Republicans put the $50 million to pay for the new initiative in a separate emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That money remains in limbo amid disagreements about how the money would be used and who would decide how to spend it.
Evers argued that the Legislature didn't have the power to withhold the money and the court should order it to be released to the education department.
The Legislature has been increasing the amount of money it puts in the emergency fund that it can release at its discretion, but it remains a small percentage of the total state budget. In the last budget, about $230 million was in the fund, or about half of a percentage point of the entire budget.
Republicans sue to stop veto
Evers used his partial veto power on another bill that created the mechanism for spending the $50 million for the new program. He argued that his changes would simplify the process and give DPI more flexibility. Evers also eliminated grants for private voucher and charter schools.
Republican legislators sued, contending that the governor illegally used his partial veto power.
State law allows only for a partial veto of bills that spend money. For all other bills, the governor must either sign or veto them in their entirety.
Because the bill Evers partially vetoed was a framework for spending, but didn't actually allocate any money, his partial vetoes were unconstitutional, lawmakers argued.
Evers argued for a liberal interpretation of his veto powers. He said that by challenging it, the Legislature was trying to weaken his powers.
A Dane County judge sided with Evers, determining that the bill in question qualified as an appropriations bill subject to partial vetoes. But in a win for the Legislature, he did not find fault with the Legislature's budget committee putting funding for the program under its control.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that putting the money into the emergency fund was legal. But the court also said Evers' veto was illegal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
16 minutes ago
- The Intercept
War Powers Resolution From House Democratic Leaders May Not Limit Trump's War Powers
As Democrats try to push forward legislation that would block further strikes on Iran, one measure advanced by House leadership could actually strengthen the Trump administration's justification for subsequent attacks, anti-war advocates warn. House progressives on Wednesday were trying to reach a compromise with Democratic leaders that would curb further U.S. military involvement in Iran while satisfying concerns from pro-Israel members about American support for Israel's missile defense. There are three different war powers resolutions in play in Washington. In the Senate, a resolution from Tim Kaine, D-Va., appears to be on track for a vote on Friday. In the House, however, Democrats remain sharply divided between two resolutions. 'There's no upside to advancing a competing War Powers Resolution. It's not just unnecessary — it's actively counterproductive,' Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, said in a statement. 'There's still time to reconcile this on the House side, and we hope an agreement can be reached to enable a strong vote with the best possible language.' The resolutions in both chambers face long odds, thanks to near-unanimous support from the majority Republicans for President Donald Trump's strikes. Congressional Democrats are responding to Trump's strikes by pursuing a vote under the War Powers Act, the Vietnam War-era law designed to limit presidents' ability to launch military action abroad without congressional approval. Kaine's initial resolution introduced last week directs Trump to halt hostilities against Iran, while making clear that the president can still defend the U.S. from imminent attack. Kaine's resolution has drawn support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. It is expected to come to a voter later this week. Amid concerns from pro-Israel Democrats, Kaine said Tuesday that he was co-sponsoring an amendment to his resolution with Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Andy Kim, D-N.J. The amendment is intended to continue to allow the U.S. to participate in Israeli missile defense. Pentagon officials said last April that the U.S. — not Israel — shot down most Iranian drones and missiles during an Iranian attack. 'This amendment would leave no doubt that Senator Kaine's resolution would ensure that President Trump has to make the case to the American people for further action against Iran without constraining our ability to help defend the Israeli people from Iranian attacks,' Kim said in a statement. While most Senate Democrats appeared to have coalesced around Kaine's resolution, House Democrats remained split on Wednesday over how to respond to Trump's strikes. Advocates last week said they were frustrated that Democratic leaders were not moving forward with a resolution as Trump publicly mulled attacking Iran. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., teamed up with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to introduce a resolution. After the strikes were launched, three House Democratic committee ranking members introduced an alternative resolution that its authors claim would also force Trump to cease hostilities with Iran. The sponsors are Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut, Adam Smith of Washington, and Gregory Meeks of New York. Anti-war advocates worry that the House leadership measure could actually wind up strengthening Trump's justification for launching further strikes on Iran. In an apparent nod to Israel, the leaders' resolution would give the president the power to 'defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.' Trump has already justified his strike on Iran as an act of 'collective self-defense of our ally, Israel,' according to a letter he sent Congress, despite the assessment of U.S intelligence agencies that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Critics say the House Democratic leadership resolution mirrors the language of Trump's justification far too closely. 'We think if it passes, it would be worse than not having a war powers resolution.' 'We think if it passes, it would be worse than not having a war powers resolution,' said Yasmine Taeb, the legislative and political director for the Muslim advocacy group MPower Change. 'This war powers resolution gives the impression that the president has broad authority to be able to engage in military offensive action with respect to Iran — if Israel is asking us to.' Spokespersons for Himes, Meeks, and Smith's offices did not immediately comment. Khanna has said that his resolution is intended to preserve the U.S. military's ability to participate in Israeli missile defense. Advocates said they understood there were ongoing discussions about a compromise. The two sides have ample time: A vote on the measure is not expected to come to the floor before mid- to late-July. Whether or not the two sides come to an accord, however, the push to respond to Trump's strikes could face serious pushback from Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson said Tuesday that he thought the War Powers Act itself was unconstitutional and signaled that he may use a procedural move to prevent it from coming to the floor. The War Powers Act states that resolutions brought under its auspices must be fast-tracked to the House floor within 15 working days. Johnson, however, could try to block the resolution from receiving such a 'privileged' status — although that would likely force a vote on the procedural maneuver itself. Massie's co-sponsorship of the resolution gave it bipartisan support, but it's unclear whether he will continue to push its passage in the face of intense pressure from the White House and the ceasefire announced by Trump on Monday. Massie has said he is taking a 'wait and see' approach. As a shaky ceasefire between Israel and Iran continued to hold Wednesday morning, progressives in the House said they were pursuing a vote on their preferred resolution despite the opposition from Johnson. Khanna said at a Capitol press conference that blocking the vote with a procedural maneuver would be an 'unprecedented abrogation of congressional power.' 'The fundamental point here is that we don't know what the strikes accomplished, but we do know a lot of the harm,' Khanna said. 'It has hardened the resolve in Iran to now race towards a nuclear weapon.'
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Before Same-Sex Marriage Was U.S. Law, They Said ‘I Do' in Massachusetts
On Thursday, 10 years will have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court established same-sex marriage as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. But many of the tens of thousands of American L.G.B.T.Q. couples who have wed in the decade since might never have exchanged vows if it hadn't been for seven couples who sued the State of Massachusetts in 2001 after they were denied marriage licenses. The state's high court ruled in their favor in November 2003, and six months later, hundreds of gay couples descended on churches and synagogues and town halls across Massachusetts to make their unions official. As they did so, they were helping to set in motion a period of profound change. By the time the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, 37 states and the District of Columbia already allowed it and public opinion was moving swiftly toward acceptance. Today, though, the picture is more complicated. Last month, a Gallup survey found that while 68 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, approval among Republicans had slipped to 41 percent after peaking at 55 percent in 2021 and 2022. And the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that a right to abortion could not be found in the Constitution raised fears among many supporters of same-sex marriage that the court could overturn the Obergefell decision on similar grounds. Those who said 'I do' in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, were among the first same-sex couples to be legally married in the United States. (The marriages of thousands of couples who were issued marriage licenses in San Francisco earlier that year were later voided by the California Supreme Court.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Revised GOP plan would sell up to 1.2M acres of public lands
A revised plan from Senate Republicans would sell off as much as 1.2 million acres of publicly owned lands, according to legislative text obtained by The Hill. The updated text would require the sales of between 0.25 and 0.5 percent of the 245 million acres currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management, or between 612,500 and 1.225 million acres. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), is spearheading the plan, which would be included in the GOP's megabill to advance much of President Trump's agenda. Lee has said he would revise his original plan, which would have sold off between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it could not go inside the party's budget package. Lee's office did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment. The text obtained by The Hill only pertains to Bureau of Land Management lands, complying with Lee's promise to ax provisions in his original bill that would have also included National Forests. The text obtained by The Hill also makes further changes: It specifies that land that is sold must be used 'solely for the development of housing or to address any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing.' It excludes federally protected land and land that is already being used for other purposes such as animal grazing. It also requires land sold to be within five miles of the 'the border of a population center.' When he announced the plan, Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he wanted to sell the land in order to 'to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C., out of the way of communities that are just trying to grow.' Lee's land sales plan has been met with significant pushback, including from Democrats who held a roundtable on Wednesday morning opposing it. 'Lands like these are supposed to belong to every single American,' said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) 'Some of my colleagues are very serious about taking these places away and giving them to someone else…we will not let them sell our birthright to build luxury condos or second homes or to pay for tax cuts,' Heinrich added. The proposal is being included as part of a massive package being passed through a process known as 'reconciliation' that requires only a simple majority — sidestepping the need to include any Senate Democrats. However, the upper chamber has rules about what types of policies can be subject to this process, which evades the filibuster's 60-vote threshold. It's not immediately clear if the updated version will be allowed into the bill.
