LRB-0091/1
RAC:cjs:ph
2011 - 2012 LEGISLATURE
February 10, 2012 - Introduced by Senators Risser, Holperin, C. Larson and T.
Cullen, cosponsored by Representatives Hebl, Staskunas, Roys, Pasch,
Pocan, Jorgensen, C. Taylor, Sinicki, Berceau, Clark and Fields. Referred
to Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government
Operations.
SJR60,1,2
1To amend section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution;
relating to: prohibiting
2partial vetoes of parts of bill sections (second consideration).
Analysis by the 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 prohibits the governor, in exercising
his or her partial veto power over an appropriations 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.
SJR60,2,41
Whereas, the 2009 legislature in regular session considered a proposed
2amendment to the constitution in 2009 Senate Joint Resolution
61, which became
32009 Enrolled Joint Resolution 40, and agreed to it by a majority of the members
4elected to each of the 2 houses, which proposed amendment reads as follows:
SJR60, s. 1
Section 1. Section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution is
amended to read:
[Article V] Section 10 (1) (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 reject a part of a bill section of
the enrolled bill without rejecting the entire bill section.
SJR60,2,12
5Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring,
6That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution is agreed to by the 2011
7legislature; and, be it further
8Resolved, That the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution be
9submitted to a vote of the people at the election to be held on the first Tuesday of April,
102011; and, be it further
11Resolved, That the question concerning ratification of the foregoing proposed
12amendment to the constitution be stated on the ballot as follows:
SJR60,2,16
13Question 1: "
Partial veto. Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the
14constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto
15authority, from vetoing a part of a bill section of an enrolled bill without rejecting the
16entire bill section?"
