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.
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.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP Rep on leaked DIA report: ‘I'll take Israeli intelligence over that document any time'
Republican Rep. Carlos Gimenez tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown why he thinks Israeli Intelligence about the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities is more reliable than an assessment from the US Defense Intelligence Agency.
Associated Press
28 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A 12-day war followed by a sudden ceasefire. Some Iranians now wonder what comes next
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — For many Iranians it was a lightning sequence of events: A 12-day war with Israel and a sudden, U.S.-brokered ceasefire. Now, as they return to their neighborhoods deeply shaken by Israeli air assaults, fears mount over what the country's theocracy may do next. Human rights advocates have already warned that Iran's government is ramping up executions of dissidents and political prisoners. Since Israel launched strikes on June 13, targeting Iran's nuclear program and top military officials, Tehran has said that six people were executed on charges of spying for Israel — three of them on Wednesday alone. Four Iranians recounted to The Associated Press that they believe only a minority in the Islamic Republic still firmly supports its leadership. They said they are concerned the fallout from Israel's attack will derail any momentum for change in the country's clerical rule, in place since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The four spoke on condition of anonymity or agreeing that only their first names be used over fears of reprisals. 'We don't know what will happen,' said Shirin, a 49-year-old living in northern Tehran, the Iranian capital. She speculated that the authorities could 'take out all of their anger' at the losses in the war on ordinary Iranians. Fear of repression grows Nooshin, a 44-year-old Tehran housewife, said the government's playbook of clamping down amid internal or external pressure had already started when U.S. President Donald Trump announced a truce between Iran and Israel on Tuesday. 'Basically, after every crisis, the Iranian regime has a habit of punishing its own people, and this time, it will probably get many dissidents into trouble,' she said. The fast-tracking of several death sentence cases in recent days has sparked fears from activists that an even deadlier wave of executions could take place now that the conflict is over, similar to what followed Iran's 1980s war with Iraq. 'After the ceasefire with Israel, the Islamic Republic needs more repression to cover up military failures, prevent protests, and ensure its continued survival,' Mahmood Amiry Moghaddam, the director of the Norway-based Iran Human Rights Organization, said Wednesday. 'Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of prisoners might be at risk of executions' in the coming weeks, he added. Iranian officials, including Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, defended the government's actions and lauded what he described as the unity of Iranians. 'Our people showed that they are resolute in their defense of national security and sovereignty,' he told Al Jazeera English on Wednesday. Information blackout Days of on-and-off internet connectivity have left the population of more than 80 million people scrambling to fill in the gaps of Iranian state broadcasts. Alongside revolutionary and Islamic slogans, state media has tried to drum up a rally-behind-the-flag message, echoing past similar efforts during the Iran-Iraq war. Anchors signed off broadcasts by reciting a famous line of nationalist poetry. Elias Hazrati, a state media official considered close to Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian, made a rare acknowledgment of deep political and social divisions in the country while calling for solidarity against foreign threats. But Shirin, from northern Tehran, said she feared there were 'horrible things the government is doing right now that we have no clue about and won't know until they want us to know.' Some are optimistic Mahshid, who lives in the northwestern city of Qazvin, said she was hopeful about what the end of the war would bring and that she expects the authorities' recent leniency on enforcing the mandatory headscarf, or hijab, will remain in place. 'I feel that after emotions subside, the government will be tolerant of people on issues such as the hijab and personal freedoms,' the 45-year-old woman said. Another Tehran resident, an academic researcher who asked not to be identified by name, echoed that sentiment. He said that it was less likely authorities would be able to roll back other changes that have swept the country following years of unrest and protests against the law on the women's headscarf. 'It's unlikely the Islamic Republic will become more hard-line on social issues,' he said. 'Because of Israel's attacks, they've been weakened,' he said of the authorities, adding that there have been rumors about easing restrictions on social media platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram in the coming days. Same old power shortages The researcher said Israel had 'also been targeting a lot of non-military targets' around the capital. He said an airstrike near Midan-e Tajrish, a central square surrounded by upscale Tehran areas, had knocked out water supplies for at least a couple of days in the nearby neighborhoods. Power shortages, however, were already a part of everyday life before the war — a result of years of economic mismanagement in the country that has fueled calls for change. 'The electricity cuts for about two hours most days of the week, like we did before the war,' he said. Amid the war, supporters of Iran's clerical establishment have also tried to align themselves with what he called more 'nationalist' parts of society, without really addressing popular calls for deep reforms. 'These are the people you see demonstrating in the streets, saying we have been victorious in this war,' he said. 'But most people, more than half of the country, were people who didn't want this war.'
The Intercept
29 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.'
