Civics lesson: Vetoes 101

Charlie Sykes is outraged, of course.

Jim Doyle, according to Sykes, was being arrogant and showing his "contempt for the law" when discussing a possible challenge to his budget vetoes. Sykes' comments (italicized paragraphs are from a Journal Sentinel story):

Jim Doyle yesterday gave us a glimpse at what may turn out to be his fatal weakness: his arrogance and his contempt for the law.

Maple Bluff - Gov. Jim Doyle said Friday that Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager's review of his controversial state budget vetoes will not influence his fight with Republican legislators, who argue that his changes exceeded his authority.

"It isn't going to have an effect - the vetoes are there, the vetoes are in place," Doyle said....

"It isn't like she can undo a veto," Doyle added.

In other words: I don't care what she she says because it doesn't matter what the law actually is and she can't stop me. Whatever the constitution says, nobody can stop me.

Actually, that's not what he said. He did say:

"This is a matter between the Legislature and governor," adding: "You can open up your civics book and, if the Legislature doesn't like a veto that I have issued, they have the final say: They can override that veto. And if they don't have the votes to override the veto, the veto stands. That's the way the system works."

Maybe it really is time to open up the civics book. Here's how the process works:

1. The legislature passes a budget.

2. The governor uses his line-item veto power to make changes.

3. The legislature, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, can override any of his vetoes, in which case the language reverts to the budget passed by the legislature.

That's all. There's nothing in the constitution about review by the attorney general or the Supreme Court.

It is true, of course, that the Supreme Court (not the attorney general) could rule that some of Doyle's vetoes are unconstitutional. But they had that opportunity several times when Tommy Thompson was governor, and every case they decided broadened his authority. At the moment, no one has even filed any legal action about the vetoes.

AG Peg Lautenschlager says she will review Doyle's vetoes, at the request of the Republican legislative leaders. She apparently will offer an opinion about whether Doyle acted legally. But that's all it will be -- an opinion. She is not the judicial branch, so her opinions do not hold the force of law. Doyle, who was AG for 12 years, would gladly have overturned some Thompson vetoes if he could. But he couldn't.

If Lautenschlager were to say that she thinks Doyle acted improperly, it might bolster GOP arguments in a lawsuit. But her opinion is not a substitute for a lawsuit. Aside from overriding those vetoes, the GOP's only recourse is to ask the court to overturn them. If that happens, all bets are off about what happens next -- a new budget? A cutoff of $400-million in state aid the schools now expect? Most likely, total chaos.

If the case actually goes to court -- which seems unlikely -- Doyle would obviously prefer that the AG agree with him and defend his vetoes in court. If she doesn't, it will give some ammunition to the Republicans, but that's all. Her opinion will not determine the outcome of the legal case. The justices will reach their own conclusions.

So what Doyle did on Friday was just state the facts. Lautenschlager's opinion,whatever it turns out to be, will not change any of his vetoes. Perhaps he could have said it more diplomatically, but Sykes and the Doyle-haters will hear what they want to hear, no matter how delicate the phrasing.