A case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court could reshape state government. Here's what to know

MADISON - The state's highest court is taking up a lawsuit today that could remove powers from the Republican-controlled state Legislature, reshaping state government.

Wisconsin Supreme Court justices will hear arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers against Republican lawmakers who lead powerful committees, challenging the panel's power to block policies put forward by the governor.

Evers sued GOP lawmakers in October over decisions to withhold pay raises for University of Wisconsin System employees and to block conservation projects, arguing such actions made by legislative committees rather than the full Legislature violate the state Constitution's separation of powers requirements.

Evers' petition asked the state Supreme Court to invalidate state laws that empower legislative committees to effectively veto measures passed in state laws or budget plans but the court declined to take up issues beyond conservation projects.

Why did Tony Evers sue?

The state Legislature's most powerful committee, known as the Joint Finance Committee, takes up spending proposals, the state budget plan, land acquisitions, and other proposals tied to finances, among other measures.

Evers sued the leaders of the committee after it blocked conservation projects approved by his administration in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources through the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program.

Over the last several years, Republican members of the committee have blocked a number of popular projects without holding public meetings to inform applicants why funding was denied. Members of the committee are permitted to anonymously object to a project, without any requirements for public disclosure.

What happens if the court sides with Evers?

If the governor succeeds, the Legislature would be prevented from outright blocking projects proposed under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship land conservation program.

A ruling in Evers' favor could have far-reaching impact, upending rules that have governed legislative committees for decades in some cases.

What are the projects at issue?

Some of the projects rejected in recent years include the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs outside Port Washington, on the shores of Lake Michigan. The project was ultimately funded by Evers, using $2.3 million of federal COVID money, eliminating the need for stewardship money.

The committee also objected to the purchase of conservation easements on tens of thousands of acres in northern Wisconsin that would have ensured public access to the Pelican River Forest in perpetuity. The Department of Natural Resources sought about $15.5 million for the purchase. The project was objected to last year due to concerns by some local municipalities, but despite ongoing negotiations, the finance committee refused to take up the project during an open meeting.

In his State of the State address earlier this year, Evers announced the purchase of more than 50,000 acres of conservation easements for the Pelican River Forest project, leveraging a new grant that allowed him to bypass legislative Republicans who blocked a different funding source.

Most recently, the committee voted along party lines in February to deny $1.02 million for a boat launch at Kreher Park, located within the former Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund site.

What does Evers argue?

The lawsuit put forward by Evers argues the committees' veto actions "evade the constitutional lawmaking procedures of bicameralism — passage of a bill through both houses — and presentment to the Governor for signature or veto."

What do the Republican members say?

In the most recent instance, the Joint Finance Committee voted along party lines to deny $1.02 million for a boat launch within the former Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront Superfund site.

The current boat launch, which provides access to Lake Superior, is made of timber and has deteriorated over the years, according to documents. The launch is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, either, and has been listed as a priority project by the Wisconsin Waterways Commission. The launch is also inaccessible to larger boats, due to sedimentation issues caused by lake currents.

Without the funding, the project won't be able to move forward, unless the city is able to find an alternative source.

Rep. Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam, a co-chair of the committee, said at the time it was denied because the stewardship money would have paid for more than 70% of the total cost for the boat launch.

"The locals are barely at the table," he said. "They can't even meet us halfway. There are a lot of projects that get 50-50 or a lot more than that even. And local buy-in isn't just the local government."

Born noted that the city was asked to be more of a partner in the project, but said "we can't right now."

"OK, by all means, if they want to be a partner, then reapply and we'll be happy to be a partner with them," he said. "But not the funder."

Attorneys for the GOP lawmakers in court filings said the committees are well within their scope to provide oversight over policies.

While the Legislature's "review authority could possibly invade an executive-branch power in some instances," the attorneys argued, "it is necessarily a shared power in numerous others, given the Legislature’s constitutional power of the purse."

The decision to take up the lawsuit was split. What do the objectors say?

In a dissent joined by conservative Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that the court's liberal majority is "needlessly engulfing this court in the morass of politics."

"By accepting only one of the issues raised by the Governor and holding the other two issues in abeyance, the majority refashions this court as the Governor's avenue for imposing policy changes without the consent of the governed," Bradley wrote. "When the majority's political allies say jump, the new majority responds: 'How high?'"

Allowing the case to bypass the lower courts "sets this court on a perilous path to resolve interbranch disputes whenever the Governor complains the Legislature is hindering his policy agenda," she wrote.

In a separate dissent also joined by Ziegler, conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn noted that the court's decision would "affect matters of statewide importance," making the issue potentially appropriate for its review.

"In this case, however, no emergency beckons, nor is there a pressing need to short-circuit the normal litigation process," Hagedorn wrote.

Hagedorn argued the state's high court would benefit from the case working its way through lower branches, where it could be narrowed and refined.

Laura Schulte and Jessie Opoien of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contributed to this report.

This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Supreme Court case could reshape state government