2007 - 2008 LEGISLATURE
January 16, 2007 - Introduced by Senators Carpenter, Harsdorf, Lehman, S.
Fitzgerald, Darling, Grothman, Olsen, A. Lasee, Schultz, Leibham, Kedzie,
Cowles, Roessler, Kapanke, Lazich, Kanavas and Ellis, cosponsored by
Representatives Friske, Stone, Albers, Pridemore, Kerkman, Gundrum,
Lothian, Ballweg, Strachota, Musser, Bies, Tauchen, J. Fitzgerald,
Townsend, Vos, Gunderson, Nerison, Gottlieb, Kestell, Montgomery,
Suder, Hahn, Jeskewitz, Moulton, Van Roy, Kleefisch, Mursau, Rhoades,
Kramer, F. Lasee, Honadel, Wood, Ziegelbauer, Owens, Nass, Murtha,
Nygren, Petersen, M. Williams, Meyer, Ott, Vukmir, Hines and LeMahieu.
Referred to Committee on Ethics Reform and Government Operations.
section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution; relating to: prohibiting
2partial vetoes from creating new sentences (second consideration).
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Explanation of Proposal
This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given second consideration by
the 2007 legislature for submittal to the voters in April 2007, was first considered by
the 2005 legislature in 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 33, which became 2005
Enrolled Joint Resolution 46.
The proposed constitutional amendment prohibits the governor, in exercising
his or her partial veto authority on appropriation bills, from creating new sentences
by combining parts of two or more sentences of the enrolled bill.
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.
Whereas, the 2005 legislature in regular session considered a proposed 2
amendment to the constitution in 2005 Senate Joint Resolution 33
, which became 3
2005 Enrolled Joint Resolution 46, and agreed to it by a majority of the members 4
elected to each of the 2 houses, which proposed amendment reads as follows:
SJR5, s. 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 of the enrolled bill.
5Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring,
the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution is agreed to by the 2007 7
legislature; and, be it further
the foregoing proposed amendment to the constitution be 9
submitted to a vote of the people at the election to be held on the first Tuesday of April, 10
2007; and, be it further
the question concerning ratification of the foregoing proposed 12
amendment to the constitution be stated on the ballot as follows:
Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the 14
constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto 15
authority, from creating a new sentence by combining parts of two or more sentences 16
of the enrolled bill?"