Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to governor's 400-year school funding veto - eviltoast

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for the next 400 years, the justices announced Monday.

The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center filed a lawsuit in April arguing the governor exceeded his authority. The group asked the high court to strike down the veto without waiting for the case to go through lower courts.

The court issued an order Monday afternoon saying it would take the case. The justices didn’t elaborate beyond setting a briefing schedule.

At issue is a partial veto Evers made in the state budget in July 2023 that increased revenue public schools can raise per student by $325 annually until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is longstanding precedent in their location and is technically allowed by law. Still dumb though, even if I do like this particular governor.

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      What’s stopping from vetoing any bill and making it say what you want?

      Absolutely no carts in open aisles while-galloping

      Abortion is legal

      (Fucked up a few letters but point remains)

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You can’t strike letters to make new words, or parts of sentences to combine sentences. But striking digits and punctuation within one sentence to turn two numbers into a different number is technically neither of those. Your example would not be allowed.