Historically, the purpose of the separation of powers has been to prevent such a concentration of power in one person or group that they can impose tyranny. While the idealists among us like to believe the power of the people can check government, as James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, 'Experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.'
In Wisconsin, you can throw the historic arguments for checks and balances aside, because for the last quarter century, Wisconsinites have enjoyed their power concentrated. The governor's veto power, one of those auxiliary precautions available to the executive branch to balance the legislature, has become a chief source of imbalance and concentration of power. Only in this fine state does the governor legislate'using the broadest executive veto power in the nation'while the legislature entangles itself in bickering and financial scandal. In the 1991 assembly budget bill alone, the red pen of the partial veto was used 457 times.
The governor's power of the pen has increased over the last quarter century, while the legislature has looked on almost helplessly. In 1973, Governor Patrick Lucey created the 'digit veto' by removing a single digit to change $25 million to $5 million. Lucey expanded the veto repertoire in 1975 by removing 'not' from a sentence to reverse the intent of the bill, creating the 'editing veto.'
Not to be outdone, Governor Anthony Earl in 1983 coined the 'pick-a-letter veto' by cutting a five-paragraph, 121-word section to one paragraph, 22 words. Finally, Governor Tommy Thompson created the 'reduction veto' in 1993 by crossing out dollar numbers and writing in new ones. The end result has been a legislature making suggestions and a governor making the law. If a U.S. president had this same veto power total chaos would ensue.
This year, state Senator Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls, is accusing Gov.. Doyle of crossing out 752 words in the recent budget to create a new 20-word sentence authorizing spending $427,000 never intended for by the legislature.
Wisconsin liberals are praising the veto now that Governor Doyle is pitted against a Republican-controlled legislature. They were not as content when Tommy Thompson was wielding his red pen and will no longer be content if Mark Green or Scott Walker takes the governor's mansion in 2006. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue'this is a good-governance issue.
It should be no surprise that only 6 percent of Wisconsin residents believe their officials represent the interests of constituents on important issues. To create a bill 'safe' enough to get past the governor's desk, legislators are forced to compromise the core values of their constituents, especially those with a view different of the governor's.
Even when a majority of legislators support a bill, most legislation is dead on arrival'??and receives less attention'because overriding a veto almost always requires members of the governor's party to break the party line. Thus, the knowledge of a governor's veto enters the legislative arena by setting the legislative agenda and determining which bills deserve substantial debate.
The legislature is beginning to fight back. Earlier this week, the state Senate passed a resolution that, if approved by voters, restricts any governor from 'creating new sentences by combining parts of two or more sentences.'
Only once in 21 previous considerations has the legislature succeeded in amending the veto power'in 1990, voters approved an amendment preventing the governor from creating new words by crossing out individual letters. The fact that the legislature actually needs to pass laws to prevent the governor from combining parts of sentences to create new sentences or creating new words by crossing out individual letters demonstrates the power imbalance between the executive and legislative branches in Wisconsin.
The problem with the veto is in the language of the amendment, which says the governor may approve appropriations bills 'in part.' This wording has led to a broad interpretation that essentially allows the governor to legislate with the veto. Most other states merely let the governor veto items in an appropriations bill, which is called a line-item veto.
Radical steps must be taken to limit the most expansive veto power in the country. Instead of spending energy on small, technical veto issues such as combining words or striking out numbers, legislators need to wipe out the entire veto power, established in 1930, and offer voters a chance to approve an entirely new, less expansive veto power. The new veto power should resemble the line-item veto, which would give the governor options other than vetoing an enormous bill in its entirety while not allowing him to rewrite the bill.
The biggest obstacle to major alterations in the veto power are always line-toeing partisans backing their governor. State Democrats would be on political thin ice in confronting Gov. Doyle regarding the veto power, but they should remember that government is supposed to serve the people, not the powerful.
