4 ms·

Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk? One of the most bizarre legal opinions I've eve

Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk? One of the most bizarre legal opinions I've ever heard of, but if they used any digits in the writing of the law those are up for grabs. Law makes a 30 day window or something? The governor can just change it to a million days with a stroke of the pen and then sign the edit into law with the same pen!

nwellinghoff 1y ago
What if it’s a “thirty day” window? Safe?
- conartist6 1y ago
  Yes, my understanding is that only digits are meaningless per the supreme court's ruling there
gizmo686 1y ago
> Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk? Pretty close. > (b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law. > (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated The big limitation here is that it is limited to appropriations. Further, the constitution goes out of its way to try and prevent creative vetoing. Unfortunately, the court decided that numbers are not words. As a result, the governor changed "for the 2023–24 school year and the 2024–25 school year" to "for 2023–2425" https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/wisconsin-governors-creative-use-line-item-veto-extended-school-funding https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/wisco...
- stavros 1y ago
  May not reject individual letters? You know that's there because someone did it before.
  - CGamesPlay 1y ago
    > Evers’s veto is part of a dubious Wisconsin tradition. In 1975, Gov. Patrick Lucey struck the word “not” from the phrase “not less than,” reversing its meaning. In the 1980s, Govs. Tony Earl and Tommy Thompson crossed out individual letters to create entirely new words. And in 2005, Gov. Jim Doyle reappropriated over $400 million from its intended use by striking all but 20 words from a 752-word passage, creating a new sentence bearing no resemblance to the language approved by the legislature.
    - stavros 1y ago
      Wow, I have no words. I could strike some off your comment to make something, though.
      - quectophoton 1y ago
        Random trivia: Memes in that format are known as "speed of lobsters" memes, where you take a screenshot of some text/post/tweet/whatever and then delete/hide words and letters to make up completely different sentences.
        stavros 1y ago
        Well, I thought I knew all the memes, but I learned something new, thank you.
    - sandbags 1y ago
      I'm not in the US so I've no dog in this race only curiousity. I can understand allowing a governor to change the text of a bill. But I cannot understand allowing them to sign those changes into law. It seems like that would mean they could creatively reverse the meaning of any bill. It seems like a governor should be able to approve the text as written, or change it and send it back. What am I missing?

nwellinghoff 1y ago

What if it’s a “thirty day” window? Safe?

conartist6 1y ago
Yes, my understanding is that only digits are meaningless per the supreme court's ruling there

gizmo686 1y ago

> Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk? Pretty close. > (b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law. > (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated The big limitation here is that it is limited to appropriations. Further, the constitution goes out of its way to try and prevent creative vetoing. Unfortunately, the court decided that numbers are not words. As a result, the governor changed "for the 2023–24 school year and the 2024–25 school year" to "for 2023–2425" https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/wisconsin-governors-creative-use-line-item-veto-extended-school-funding https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/wisco...

stavros 1y ago
May not reject individual letters? You know that's there because someone did it before.
- CGamesPlay 1y ago
  > Evers’s veto is part of a dubious Wisconsin tradition. In 1975, Gov. Patrick Lucey struck the word “not” from the phrase “not less than,” reversing its meaning. In the 1980s, Govs. Tony Earl and Tommy Thompson crossed out individual letters to create entirely new words. And in 2005, Gov. Jim Doyle reappropriated over $400 million from its intended use by striking all but 20 words from a 752-word passage, creating a new sentence bearing no resemblance to the language approved by the legislature.
  - stavros 1y ago
    Wow, I have no words. I could strike some off your comment to make something, though.
    - quectophoton 1y ago
      Random trivia: Memes in that format are known as "speed of lobsters" memes, where you take a screenshot of some text/post/tweet/whatever and then delete/hide words and letters to make up completely different sentences.
      - stavros 1y ago
        Well, I thought I knew all the memes, but I learned something new, thank you.
  - sandbags 1y ago
    I'm not in the US so I've no dog in this race only curiousity. I can understand allowing a governor to change the text of a bill. But I cannot understand allowing them to sign those changes into law. It seems like that would mean they could creatively reverse the meaning of any bill. It seems like a governor should be able to approve the text as written, or change it and send it back. What am I missing?