The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for the next 400 years, the justices announced Monday.

The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center filed a lawsuit in April arguing the governor exceeded his authority. The group asked the high court to strike down the veto without waiting for the case to go through lower courts.

The court issued an order Monday afternoon saying it would take the case. The justices didn’t elaborate beyond setting a briefing schedule.

At issue is a partial veto Evers made in the state budget in July 2023 that increased revenue public schools can raise per student by $325 annually until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    At issue is a partial veto Evers made in the state budget in July 2023 that increased revenue public schools can raise per student by $325 annually until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.

    For those wondering. he basically decided to change the term. Which, might sound like a really good idea, but any one wanna take a guess what the inflation is going to look like 400 years from now? This strikes me as being unnecessarily stupid.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 days ago

      It’s a law, it can be changed by another vote. Even if it was in the constitution, they could just amend it.

      It was an interesting workaround, and just changes the conversation for the next bill.

      • girlfreddyOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        I’m at a loss to understand why it’s an “interesting workaround because it changes the conversation for next time”. I mean that’s a pretty low bar, meaning you could lump Trump’s Project 2025 under that same umbrella, even though they are not even close in their strength or ability to utterly kill the conversation.

        It is literally wasting time on dumb shit when there’s a lot of important stuff that could be done instead.