The Selective Veto in Wisconsin
- WULR Team
- Feb 7
- 3 min read
Power, Limits, and Legal Precedents
Published February 7 2025
Analysis by Peter Weir
In Wisconsin, the selective veto—often referred to as the “partial” or “line-item” veto—grants the governor substantial influence over state legislation by allowing them to strike specific portions of a bill rather than vetoing it in its entirety (1). This power enables the governor to remove individual lines, figures, or words to reshape the legislation before signing it into law. While the selective veto grants the executive branch considerable authority, it has also spurred debate regarding checks and balances in Wisconsin’s government (1).
Wisconsin’s selective veto power is among the most expansive in the nation, historically enabling governors to modify bills in ways that can fundamentally alter legislative intent (1). The origins of the selective veto date back to 1930, when Wisconsin voters approved an amendment granting the governor the ability to veto individual appropriations within bills (2). Over time, the state Supreme Court has heard multiple challenges to the limits of this power, leading to refinements and clarifications on what constitutes an appropriate exercise of the veto (1).
In 1990, Wisconsin voters attempted to curb the governor’s veto power by approving an amendment prohibiting the “Vanna White veto,” which allowed governors to cross out individual letters to form new words, potentially drastically altering a bill’s meaning (1) This amendment aimed to limit the creative liberties governors were taking with legislation. However, even with these restrictions, the line-item veto remains a powerful tool. In Kleczka v. Conta, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the governor could use the selective veto to remove individual words, figures, and punctuation, provided that the vetoed portions were parts of appropriations (3). The decision in Kleczka reinforced the broad authority of the governor in reshaping appropriation bills. However, it also set a standard that the bill must still reflect the legislature’s general intent (3).
Though primarily focused on executive orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm indirectly highlighted concerns about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches (6). This case brought renewed scrutiny to the governor's use of executive powers, including the selective veto, especially when addressing urgent public health and economic issues (4). The decision underscored the ongoing tensions over executive authority in the state, reminding lawmakers of the importance of clarity in legislative language to avoid unintended reinterpretations by the governor (4).
In a recent case, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) v. Evers, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reviewing Governor Tony Evers' application of the selective veto in a way that has pushed the limits of its traditional use (5). The controversy centers around Evers’ alteration of a budget item intended to set school revenue increases through 2024-25, which he adjusted to span until the year 2425. By striking out the “20” and a hyphen, Evers transformed the bill’s scope from a two-year budgetary adjustment to a 400-year commitment to increased school revenue (5). WMC, Wisconsin’s largest business lobbying group, argued that Evers effectively created new legislation–a move they contend goes beyond the authority granted under Wisconsin’s partial veto powers.5 While some justices showed skepticism about WMC's argument, suggesting that a number may not be subject to the same constraints as words or letters, others expressed concern over the governor’s ability to unilaterally enact policy changes (5). This case, which may set new precedents, highlights the evolving judicial interpretation of executive power and its potential impact on the balance of legislative intent and gubernatorial influence in Wisconsin.
The selective veto remains an influential tool, but it continues to face opposition from those who argue it undermines legislative authority. As Wisconsin’s political landscape evolves, challenges to the selective veto may lead to additional expansions or limits on its application. Today, debates over the selective veto underscore broader discussions about the appropriate balance of power within Wisconsin’s government and the need for ongoing evaluation of executive authority to ensure it aligns with the state’s democratic principles. As Wisconsin navigates contemporary challenges, the selective veto will likely remain a focal point of debate over how best to balance power and accountability in state government.
Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, Reading the Wisconsin Constitution: Article V, Section 10 — The Governor’s Partial Veto Power (Wisconsin Legislature, 2019), https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lrb/reading_the_constitution/reading_the_constitution_4_1.pdf.
State ex rel. Kleczka v. Conta, Justia Law, 1978, https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1978/77-463-0-7.html.
Hamilton, Hamilton. “Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Oral Arguments on ‘400-Year’ Partial Veto.” Wisconsin Examiner, October 22, 2024, https://www.hamilton-consulting.com/wisconsin-supreme-court-holds-oral-arguments-on-400-year-partial-veto/.
“Wisconsin Supreme Court Grapples with Governor’s 400-year Veto.” Spectrum News 1, October 9, 2024, https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2024/10/09/wisconsin--tony-evers--veto--challenge--supreme-court.
Hamilton, “Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Oral Arguments.”
Wisconsin Supreme Court, Wisconsin Legislature v. Secretary of State, Justia Law, 2020, https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap000765-oa.html.