'Frankenstein veto' vote may have far-reaching implications
David Callender — 3/21/2008 7:15 am
It hasn't drawn nearly as much attention as this spring's nasty state Supreme Court race, but a proposed constitutional amendment on the April 1 ballot could have even more far-reaching effects.
Voters are being asked to consider an amendment to rein in the governor's ability to rewrite budget bills — and potentially to create new legislation that lawmakers never considered — through the use of the veto pen.
Under the amendment, the governor would be banned from stringing together words from different sentences to create a new sentence. The governor could, however, still strike out individual words within a sentence to change its meaning and could still rewrite budget numbers to raise or lower spending within a budget.
Sponsors of the amendment say it would help to rid the state of the so-called "Frankenstein veto," in which governors have stitched together words across pages of budget language to form new sentences.
For supporters of the amendment, the most extreme example of the "Frankenstein veto" came in 2005 when Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle crossed out more than 700 words in the budget bill to shift $330 million from the state's transportation fund to local school aids.
Doyle's move thwarted efforts by majority Republicans in both houses to box him into the politically unpalatable position of forcing schools to make huge program cuts or raise property taxes. Doyle argued that his veto pen saved both taxpayers and local schools; lawmakers were unable to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override the veto.
Although Doyle, as attorney general, criticized Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson's use of the partial veto during the 1980s and 1990s, Doyle has said that as governor he now understands the need for it as a counterbalance to the Legislature.
While Doyle's spokeswoman Jessica Erickson maintained that the governor has no official position on the amendment, she added that the veto power "has been an important check on the Legislature" when it has "gone to extremes" in spending or cutting vital programs.
Most of the impetus for the amendment has come from Republican lawmakers, but one of the co-sponsors of the measure is Democratic Sen. Tim Carpenter of Milwaukee.
Carpenter said he supports the amendment because "it's a good government reform issue. It's institutional, not partisan."
Carpenter acknowledged that pushing through such a proposal when a Democratic governor is in power might not have earned him brownie points with Gov. Jim Doyle or some of his Democratic colleagues. But, he said, "it's not meant as a personal attack on Gov. Doyle."
Carpenter said the current veto powers allow any governor — Democrat or Republican — "to create law by veto and I don't think that's what the balances of the three branches should be."
He predicts the referendum will pass easily, though he concedes that public discussion of the proposal has been eerily quiet.
"I worry a lot of people won't know it's on the ballot," he said, but added that he was cheered to see it was prominently displayed on the absentee ballot he recently cast.
One of the most persistent critics of the partial vetoes, however, warns that the constitutional amendment won't do all its sponsors promise because the governor will still be able to rewrite individual sentences.
"It's a terrible amendment," said Madison attorney Fred Wade, who led efforts in the 1980s to strike down the partial veto as an unconstitutional infringement by the governor on the Legislature's power to make laws. "It's gibberish."
Wisconsin voters gave governors the partial veto power in the 1930s, when the state budget was consolidated from a series of bills that the governor could sign or veto individually into a single omnibus act.
But generally it wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s when governors began to get creative with their veto powers, which included striking out individual letters to form new words and sentences, he said.
Voters approved an amendment in 1990 to eliminate the so-called "Vanna White veto," named for the letter-turner on the "Wheel of Fortune" TV show, but left the partial veto intact otherwise.
Wade warned that because of the gaps in the language in the current amendment, even if voters approve the amendment on April 1, "we're going to have to do this all over again."
'Frankenstein veto' vote may have far-reaching implications
David Callender — 3/21/2008 7:15 am
It hasn't drawn nearly as much attention as this spring's nasty state Supreme Court race, but a proposed constitutional amendment on the April 1 ballot could have even more far-reaching effects.
Voters are being asked to consider an amendment to rein in the governor's ability to rewrite budget bills — and potentially to create new legislation that lawmakers never considered — through the use of the veto pen.
Under the amendment, the governor would be banned from stringing together words from different sentences to create a new sentence. The governor could, however, still strike out individual words within a sentence to change its meaning and could still rewrite budget numbers to raise or lower spending within a budget.
Sponsors of the amendment say it would help to rid the state of the so-called "Frankenstein veto," in which governors have stitched together words across pages of budget language to form new sentences.
For supporters of the amendment, the most extreme example of the "Frankenstein veto" came in 2005 when Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle crossed out more than 700 words in the budget bill to shift $330 million from the state's transportation fund to local school aids.
Doyle's move thwarted efforts by majority Republicans in both houses to box him into the politically unpalatable position of forcing schools to make huge program cuts or raise property taxes. Doyle argued that his veto pen saved both taxpayers and local schools; lawmakers were unable to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override the veto.
Although Doyle, as attorney general, criticized Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson's use of the partial veto during the 1980s and 1990s, Doyle has said that as governor he now understands the need for it as a counterbalance to the Legislature.
While Doyle's spokeswoman Jessica Erickson maintained that the governor has no official position on the amendment, she added that the veto power "has been an important check on the Legislature" when it has "gone to extremes" in spending or cutting vital programs.
Most of the impetus for the amendment has come from Republican lawmakers, but one of the co-sponsors of the measure is Democratic Sen. Tim Carpenter of Milwaukee.
Carpenter said he supports the amendment because "it's a good government reform issue. It's institutional, not partisan."
Carpenter acknowledged that pushing through such a proposal when a Democratic governor is in power might not have earned him brownie points with Gov. Jim Doyle or some of his Democratic colleagues. But, he said, "it's not meant as a personal attack on Gov. Doyle."
Carpenter said the current veto powers allow any governor — Democrat or Republican — "to create law by veto and I don't think that's what the balances of the three branches should be."
He predicts the referendum will pass easily, though he concedes that public discussion of the proposal has been eerily quiet.
"I worry a lot of people won't know it's on the ballot," he said, but added that he was cheered to see it was prominently displayed on the absentee ballot he recently cast.
One of the most persistent critics of the partial vetoes, however, warns that the constitutional amendment won't do all its sponsors promise because the governor will still be able to rewrite individual sentences.
"It's a terrible amendment," said Madison attorney Fred Wade, who led efforts in the 1980s to strike down the partial veto as an unconstitutional infringement by the governor on the Legislature's power to make laws. "It's gibberish."
Wisconsin voters gave governors the partial veto power in the 1930s, when the state budget was consolidated from a series of bills that the governor could sign or veto individually into a single omnibus act.
But generally it wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s when governors began to get creative with their veto powers, which included striking out individual letters to form new words and sentences, he said.
Voters approved an amendment in 1990 to eliminate the so-called "Vanna White veto," named for the letter-turner on the "Wheel of Fortune" TV show, but left the partial veto intact otherwise.
Wade warned that because of the gaps in the language in the current amendment, even if voters approve the amendment on April 1, "we're going to have to do this all over again."
'Frankenstein veto' vote may have far-reaching implications
David Callender — 3/21/2008 7:15 am
It hasn't drawn nearly as much attention as this spring's nasty state Supreme Court race, but a proposed constitutional amendment on the April 1 ballot could have even more far-reaching effects.
Voters are being asked to consider an amendment to rein in the governor's ability to rewrite budget bills — and potentially to create new legislation that lawmakers never considered — through the use of the veto pen.
Under the amendment, the governor would be banned from stringing together words from different sentences to create a new sentence. The governor could, however, still strike out individual words within a sentence to change its meaning and could still rewrite budget numbers to raise or lower spending within a budget.
Sponsors of the amendment say it would help to rid the state of the so-called "Frankenstein veto," in which governors have stitched together words across pages of budget language to form new sentences.
For supporters of the amendment, the most extreme example of the "Frankenstein veto" came in 2005 when Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle crossed out more than 700 words in the budget bill to shift $330 million from the state's transportation fund to local school aids.
Doyle's move thwarted efforts by majority Republicans in both houses to box him into the politically unpalatable position of forcing schools to make huge program cuts or raise property taxes. Doyle argued that his veto pen saved both taxpayers and local schools; lawmakers were unable to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override the veto.
Although Doyle, as attorney general, criticized Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson's use of the partial veto during the 1980s and 1990s, Doyle has said that as governor he now understands the need for it as a counterbalance to the Legislature.
While Doyle's spokeswoman Jessica Erickson maintained that the governor has no official position on the amendment, she added that the veto power "has been an important check on the Legislature" when it has "gone to extremes" in spending or cutting vital programs.
Most of the impetus for the amendment has come from Republican lawmakers, but one of the co-sponsors of the measure is Democratic Sen. Tim Carpenter of Milwaukee.
Carpenter said he supports the amendment because "it's a good government reform issue. It's institutional, not partisan."
Carpenter acknowledged that pushing through such a proposal when a Democratic governor is in power might not have earned him brownie points with Gov. Jim Doyle or some of his Democratic colleagues. But, he said, "it's not meant as a personal attack on Gov. Doyle."
Carpenter said the current veto powers allow any governor — Democrat or Republican — "to create law by veto and I don't think that's what the balances of the three branches should be."
He predicts the referendum will pass easily, though he concedes that public discussion of the proposal has been eerily quiet.
"I worry a lot of people won't know it's on the ballot," he said, but added that he was cheered to see it was prominently displayed on the absentee ballot he recently cast.
One of the most persistent critics of the partial vetoes, however, warns that the constitutional amendment won't do all its sponsors promise because the governor will still be able to rewrite individual sentences.
"It's a terrible amendment," said Madison attorney Fred Wade, who led efforts in the 1980s to strike down the partial veto as an unconstitutional infringement by the governor on the Legislature's power to make laws. "It's gibberish."
Wisconsin voters gave governors the partial veto power in the 1930s, when the state budget was consolidated from a series of bills that the governor could sign or veto individually into a single omnibus act.
But generally it wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s when governors began to get creative with their veto powers, which included striking out individual letters to form new words and sentences, he said.
Voters approved an amendment in 1990 to eliminate the so-called "Vanna White veto," named for the letter-turner on the "Wheel of Fortune" TV show, but left the partial veto intact otherwise.
Wade warned that because of the gaps in the language in the current amendment, even if voters approve the amendment on April 1, "we're going to have to do this all over again."
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/278090The whole thing sounds like a game to me- this will also be on the April 1 ballot and I'm just not sure how to vote on it. :shrug:
Edit: I just emailed my (Democratic) State Senator to ask his opinion on this - I think our legislators have time to respond to us before the election.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
