Search

Active Case

LeMieux v. Evers

Separation of Powers

This case—an original action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of a retired art professor and a substitute teacher—seeks to invalidate a partial veto that enabled school boards around Wisconsin to raise property taxes without voter approval for 400 years.
In the 2023–2025 biennium budget bill, the Wisconsin Legislature approved a two-year increase of the school-district revenue limit. Under the guise of a partial veto, however, Governor Tony Evers added 400 years to that two-year increase. As passed by the legislature, this revenue-limit increase would have lasted through the “2024–25” school year. But the Governor struck the “20” and the dash in the phrase “2024–25,” making the increase last through the year 2425.
The WMC Litigation Center made two constitutional arguments against the Governor’s veto. First, it argued the veto, in lengthening a two-year duration to a 402-year duration, did not approve “part” of a bill within the meaning of Article V, § 10(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Constitution. Second, the WMC Litigation Center argued that in deleting a “20” and a dash, the veto constituted a Vanna White veto, a type of veto prohibited under Article V, § 10(1)(c) of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Why This Case is Important

The Wisconsin governor enjoys perhaps the strongest partial veto power of any executive in the United States. This case is important because it seeks to rein in that power and thus strike a better balance between the three branches of government in Wisconsin. This case is important for another reason, too: Governor Evers’s 400-year veto allowed school districts to exponentially raise property taxes without voter approval. This case seeks to ensure that such tax increases be adopted through the proper, democratic processes outlined in state law.

Court:

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Case No.:

Appeal No. 2024AP729-OA

Stage:

Fully briefed and argued in the Wisconsin Supreme Court; awaiting a decision

Our Involvement:

The WMC Litigation Center filed this lawsuit and is representing two taxpayers in this case.
Share