Senate Joint Resolution 16
Veto power of county executive over appropriations (second consideration)
Topics: Constitutional amendments: Second consideration, County: Officers
Stopped before the full Senate voted
The recommended passing it, but the full Senate never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new proposal.
-
Introduced, passed
Mar 16, 2011
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, stopped here
Stopped here. The full Senate never voted on it.
-
Assembly vote, not reached
-
Adopted, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2012: “Failed to adopt pursuant to ”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
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 11 , which became 2009 Enrolled Joint Resolution 27 .
The proposed constitutional amendment provides that, in approving an appropriation in part, the chief executive of a county may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the resolution or ordinance and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences of the resolution or ordinance. Currently, in exercising the partial veto power, the chief executive of a county may approve appropriations contained in resolutions or ordinances in whole or part without restriction.
Read the full summary Show less
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.
Who's behind it
6 senators are its . 3 are Democrats and 3 are Republicans.
9 more lawmakers .
See all 15 names Hide the names
Authors (6)
- Tim Carpenter · Democrat, Senate
- Sheila Harsdorf · Republican, Senate
- Terry Moulton · Republican, Senate
- Fred A. Risser · Democrat, Senate
- Dale Schultz · Republican, Senate
- Lena Taylor · Democrat, Senate
Signed on in support (9)
- Garey Bies · Republican, Assembly
- Jeff Mursau · Republican, Assembly
- Steve Nass · Republican, Senate
- Sandy Pasch · Democrat, Assembly
- Roger Rivard · Republican, Assembly
- Kelda Roys · Democrat, Senate
- Christine Sinicki · Democrat, Assembly
- Richard Spanbauer · Republican, Assembly
- Jeffrey Stone · Republican, Assembly
Versions and amendments
Every text the Legislature printed for this proposal, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.
How lawmakers voted
There was one vote on this proposal.
Senate Committee on Judiciary vote on an amendment
Passed, 5 to 0 · Jul 6, 2011
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0 by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Mar 23, 2012
The session ended, and the proposal died with it.
-
Jul 6, 2011
The committee voted to recommend adopting it, 5 to 0.
-
May 24, 2011
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 16, 2011
Sent to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.
-
Mar 16, 2011
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Mar 16, 2011 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Harsdorf, Carpenter, Moulton, Schultz, Risser and Taylor;Cosponsored by Representatives Bies, Mursau, Nass, Pasch, Rivard, Roys, Sinicki, Spanbauer and Stone
- Mar 16, 2011 · Senate
Read and referred to committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations
- May 24, 2011 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Jun 28, 2011 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Jul 6, 2011 · Senate
Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0 by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations
- Jul 6, 2011 · Senate
Report adoption as amended recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Jul 6, 2011 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Mar 23, 2012 · Senate
Failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
Terms on this page
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote