About That Frankenstein Veto Amendment

An overlooked issue on the April 1 ballot would limit the Governor's expansive veto power. (See http://www.madison.com/tct/news/278090 and JS Online: Governor's selective veto at issue) As it now stands our governor can create laws that the legislature never passed. Here's an example: WISCONSIN BUDGET: ANATOMY OF A LINE-ITEM VETO.

Highly respected local lawyer Fred Wade has long been an opponent of the veto power of our state executive. So Fred supports this amendment, right? Not so fast, my friends. At my invitation Fred sent this explanation of his opposition to this amendment as being too weak (only a lawyer could consider a 720-word answer a 'nutshell'!):

In a nutshell, the pending amendment represents a lost opportunity to eliminate the "Frankenstein veto," which supporters of the amendment have defined as the power of the governor to create laws that the legislature did not approve by "stitching together" assorted remnants of a partially vetoed appropriation bill. Instead of eliminating the "Frankenstein veto" once and for all, it will actually permit governors to fabricate more laws that the legislature did not approve, either by deleting selected words, digits and punctuation marks from a single sentence, or by removing whole sentences from larger chunks of an appropriation bill.

The amendment's failure to provide for elimination of the "Frankenstein veto" is strange, because the Wisconsin Constitution contains an explicit constitutional command that "the legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly." The pending amendment will contradict that fundamental constitutional command by confirming the current understanding that governors may exercise "the legislative power" without the concurrence and consent of the legislative representatives of the people. It will allow governors to delete selected parts of an appropriation bill for the express purpose of making more laws that the legislature did not approve. It will merely prevent governors from exercising "legislative power" that the constitution has vested in the legislature by combining "parts of 2 or more sentences" for the purpose of creating "a new sentence" that the legislature did not approve.

Why does the amendment prohibit the creation of "a new sentence" that the legislature did not approve from "parts of 2 or more sentences," but allow the creation of "a new sentence" from parts of a single sentence?

Is there any constitutional principle behind that distinction?

Does it reflect a belief that the governor more likely to create wise laws from parts of a single sentence, but that the legislature is more likely to create wise laws when more than one sentence is required to prescribe the policy of the state?

More confusing is the fact that the proposed amendment will not repeal the constitution's command that "the legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly." That command will remain in the text of the constitution. But that the force of that command, and the principle of "government by the people" that it embodies, will be undermined.

Under these circumstances, the people of this state are confronted with a Hobson's choice. They may vote "NO" to confirm the current understanding that governors may use vetoes of selected "parts" of an appropriation bill to exercise "the legislative power," notwithstanding the constitutional command that "the legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly," or they may vote "YES" to confirm that governors may exercise that power in a somewhat more circumscribed form, as long as they do not create a new sentence from parts of two or more sentences.

Incredibly, there is no opportunity to vote against all use of the veto power to create laws that the legislature did not approve. There is no opportunity to restore the integrity of the decisions that are made on our behalf by what the constitution describes as "the people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly."

I say "incredibly" because, the constitutional command that "the legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly" is the foundation of the American idea of democracy. It is the means by which the people of this state may rule themselves and make their own laws.

Supporters of the amendment claim that it is "a step in the right direction." But no matter how you vote on April 1, you will be required to vote against the fundamental idea that "the legislative power shall be vested" in the legislative representatives of the people.

You will be required to vote against Abraham Lincoln's ideal of "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

You will be required to vote for dictatorial power and against democracy.

And if we are ever to eliminate such dictatorial power, and restore the integrity of the constitutional command that "the legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly," the legislature will have to pass a new constitutional amendment, and require us all to bear the expense of another ratification vote, in order to fix the problems that the pending amendment will perpetuate.