After Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) turned heads by using special veto powers to increase public education funding in his state for the next 402 years, it’s easy to wonder how he was able to make these changes to the budget.
Evers pulled out the line-item veto card Wednesday to amend Wisconsin’s two-year spending plan, a move sometimes used by governors across the country.
Here’s what you need to know about a line-item veto and its uses:
What is a line-item veto?
This variant of the veto gives the power for most states to nullify specific parts of a bill, while still allowing the rest of the bill to pass into law.
Also known as an item veto, partial veto or an amendatory veto, the line-item veto is used to strike down portions of appropriations bills, which can cause tension between the legislative and executive branches of a governmental system.
What is it used for?
Line-item vetos can be used to target portions of the bill that the governor may oppose, perhaps deeming them as unnecessary and wasteful spending in large budget bills.
Most state budgets are a negotiation between the legislature and the executive branch, but the line-item veto tilts the scale in favor of the governor. The move often gives the governor a last-minute play to moderate state budgets, because overriding the governor’s action would require a supermajority from the legislature.
Which states give their leaders line-item veto power?
Governors in 44 states currently have the power to veto individual line items of state budgets. Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont are the only states that do not allow a line-item veto.
How and when was the line-item veto declared unconstitutional?
While most governors around the country have the power to line-item veto, the president of the United States does not.
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the president the ability to line-item veto federal budget bills, but the short-lived act was swiftly struck down by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998.
In the decision, the high court ruled that the president’s ability to cancel specific sections of a bill violates the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.
The Presentment Clause holds that once a bill passes Congress, the president can either sign a bill into law or veto it. In the ruling, the majority opinion argues that under the clause, the president does not have the authority to amend a bill like one would with a line-item veto.