Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session
prohibiting partial vetoes of parts of bill sections (second consideration).
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Adopted, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
Explanation of Proposal
This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given second consideration by
the 2011 legislature for submittal to the voters in April 2011, was first considered by
the
2009
legislature in 2009 Senate Joint Resolution
61
, which became
2009
Enrolled Joint Resolution
40
.
The proposed constitutional amendment amends the Wisconsin Constitution
to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto power over an
appropriation bill, from partially vetoing parts of bill sections of an enrolled bill
without rejecting the entire bill section. Currently, in exercising the partial veto
power, the governor is limited only insofar as that he or she 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 two or more sentences of the enrolled
bill. The new restriction on the governor's partial veto power contained in this
resolution subsumes and expands on the current restrictions in the constitution.
Procedure for second ConsideratioN
When a proposed constitutional amendment is before the legislature on second
consideration, any change in the text approved by the preceding legislature causes
the proposed constitutional amendment to revert to first consideration status so that
second consideration approval would have to be given by the next legislature before
the proposal may be submitted to the people for ratification [see joint rule 57 (2)].
If the legislature approves a proposed constitutional amendment on second
consideration, it must also set the date for submitting the proposed constitutional
amendment to the people for ratification and must determine the question or
questions to appear on the ballot.
Sponsors
Votes
Suspending the rules (to take a vote immediately) needs a two-thirds majority — a higher bar than passing the bill, which needs a simple majority. That's why a suspension motion can show more Ayes than the passage vote that follows it. Glossary
Assembly: Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 35, Noes 56
Failed 35–56 Mar 15, 2012 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- Feb 23, 2012 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Hebl, Staskunas, Roys, Pasch, Pocan, Jorgensen, C. Taylor, Sinicki, Berceau, Clark and Fields;Cosponsored by Senators Risser, Holperin, C. Larson and T. Cullen
- Feb 23, 2012 · Assembly
Read and referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Refused to suspend rules to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up, Ayes 35, Noes 56
- Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly
Failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1