"Quirky' veto power not unconstitutional

Stolen in its entirety from the Journal Sentinel's Capitol blog:

U.S. judges found gov's veto power 'quirky'

In the bitter "Did, too!"/"Did not!" fight between Republicans who run the Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle over whether Doyle abused his veto power when he rewrote the GOP's state budget, it's time for a short history lesson.

In 1991, then-Republican Gov. Tommy G. Thompson's extensive vetoes of the state budget of Democrats, who then ran the Legislature, prompted two angry Democrats to sue Thompson in federal court. Those two, who are still in the Legislature, Sen. Fred Risser, of Madison, and Rep. Dave Travis, of Waunakee, sued to try and get federal judges to do what Wisconsin Supreme Court judges had refused to do for decades: clip the veto wings of Wisconsin governors, which scholars say is the broadest of all governors.

But, in a case that the U.S. Supreme Court turned its back on, the federal judges refused to get involved in what it called the ultimate state's rights issue. Basically, the federal judges told Tommy, Fred and Dave to not take up any more of their time.

According to a Legislative Reference Bureau history of the partial-veto authority of governors, here's what the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled:

"Wisconsin's partial veto provision as interpreted by the state's highest court is a rational measure for altering the balance of power between the branches (of state government).

"That it is unusual, even quirky, does not make it unconstitutional.

"It violates no federal constitutional provision because the federal Constitution does not fix the balance of power between branches of state government."

Translation: Wisconsin governors have enough veto power to make water run uphill. And, if lawmakers can't find the two-thirds majorities to override those vetoes, they are out of luck -- and have been since 1930, when governors got that partial-veto authority.

--By Steven Walters