The governor’s ability to spend money without legislature approval is up for vote

Vice President Kamala Harris (D) is less than two weeks into the presidential campaign, but she’s already spent more time in Wisconsin than Hillary Clinton did during the entire 2016 election cycle. In fact, the Badger State was Harris’ first stop on the campaign trail, and the vice president delivered a speech in Milwaukee a few days after the RNC ended, a few blocks away.

Between now and November, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump and their surrogates will visit Wisconsin, a state that is both a presidential and Senate battleground in 2024. But in the near term, Wisconsin voters will head to the polls on Aug. 13 for the state’s primary. In addition to voting in the state’s general election, Wisconsin voters will also decide on two proposed constitutional amendments that will appear on the Aug. 13 ballot, debates that parallel some of those taking place in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail.

Wisconsin is currently one of fewer than 10 states where the state legislature has no say in how federal transfer dollars, which make up a significant portion of total state spending, are allocated. Question 1 and Question 2, two constitutional amendments put on the ballot Aug. 13 by Wisconsin legislators, would change that. If approved, Question 1 and Question 2 would join a majority of states in giving state elected officials control over taxpayer dollars.

Question 1 would prevent the Wisconsin Legislature from delegating budget authority to the executive branch. Question 2 would make spending of federal transfer dollars subject to future legislative approval.

“This resolution increases accountability, efficiency, and transparency in the spending of funds received from the federal government by restoring the legislature’s role in approving this spending,” said Wisconsin Senator Howard Marklein (R) in defense of Questions 1 and 2. Senator Marklein and his colleagues voted twice to send the measure to the November ballot.

Supporters of Questions 1 and 2 say the pandemic has underscored the need for these reforms. Gov. Tony Evers (D-Wisc.) has allocated nearly $5 billion in emergency federal funds during the COVID-19 pandemic and was able to do so without the input or approval of state lawmakers.

“Billions of federal dollars have flowed into our state over the past several years,” said Wisconsin Rep. Roger Wittke (R). “This additional federal funding has been important to the economic well-being of our state, but Governor Evers alone made the decision to allocate all of this money without consideration by the Legislature. AJR 6 would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to prohibit the Governor from allocating federal money without the approval of the Legislature by joint resolution or by legislative action, and would also provide that the Legislature may not delegate its sole authority to determine how the money is allocated.”

Governor Evers has not only spent billions without the consent of elected officials over the past few years, but he has also used those funds to unilaterally create nearly 20 new grant programs, some of which require up to $300 million in recurring annual allocations. Kyle Koenen, policy director at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), an advocacy group supporting Questions 1 and 2, points out that many of the new grant programs recently created by Governor Evers without the legislature’s approval “targeted DEI issues with duplicative programs run by multiple agencies.” Koenen lays out the stakes for the outcome on August 13:

“The victory sends a powerful message to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, clarifying the separation of powers doctrine,” Koenen notes. “But the alternative would be disastrous in state court. Big-government advocates are likely to argue that the failed amendment shows that the people want more power centralized in the executive branch and that the Constitution should be interpreted according to their collective will.”

If Questions 1 and 2 are rejected by voters, Koenen and others suspect that Gov. Evers will be more willing to unilaterally accept and use federal taxpayer money without legislative input in the future. This tendency could continue for future governors for years and decades.

According to Ballotpedia, Questions 1 and 2 are opposed by “the Wisconsin Education Association Board, the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, the Wisconsin Environmental Protection Voters, and the Wisconsin Public Health Association.”

With no major statewide elections on the ballot, turnout in Wisconsin’s Aug. 13 primary is likely to be low. While the No campaign is spending more than the Yes campaign on Questions 1 and 2, polls show that nearly two-thirds of likely voters support these reforms. History has shown, especially over the past decade, that conservative candidates and causes, even if their opponents spend significantly less money on them, can still win in Wisconsin.