The Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided to uphold Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year extension of public school funding through a creative veto in 2023.

A creative veto refers to a partial veto where a governor alters a bill’s language to create new meaning or outcome, especially when it comes to budget bills.

The budget sent to Evers in 2023 was intended to apply to the 2023-24 school year and the 2024-25 school year. But, using his veto power, Evers extended it to apply for 2023-2425.

The litigation arm of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, an association of manufacturers, service businesses and chambers of commerce, argued the Democratic governor’s veto usage was too far. The Wisconsin Supreme Court defended Evers, claiming he has the right to use creative vetoes. In a 4-3 decision, the court’s justices ruled the governor’s partial vetoes did not violate the Constitution.

Critics of Evers asserted his partial veto clearly violated a 1990 amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution that bans what is informally referred to as the “Vanna White” veto. With a clever reference to the star of “Wheel of Fortune,” the amendment bans piecing together letters from different words to create new words.

But there is an obvious loophole in this amendment in that the state law does not prohibit the governor from striking individual digits to create new numbers.

Following this line of logic, the governor did not make an unconstitutional decision. But just because the ruling isn’t directly unconstitutional doesn’t automatically make it cleanly constitutional either. The veto was an arguably dirty move.

Intention is not an easy thing to argue, and it is an even harder thing to prove, but I feel confident in arguing that lawmakers did not intentionally leave out the aspect of rearranging numbers because they thought it was constitutional. Creating new numbers is essentially the same as creating new words — you’re allowing people in power to read between the lines and manipulate meaning to benefit their goals.

While the budget does expand funding for public schools, it will also allow school districts to increase local property taxes for the next 400 years, entirely unchecked by other branches of government. This is a fact that will have serious effects on Wisconsinites.

I have no problem with long-term solutions, and investing in public education is absolutely necessary, but what we’re witnessing right now is the start of a slippery slope. Setting the precedent that you can manipulate the words of the Constitution to get the legislature you want passed opens up doors to a whole lot of trouble. What Evers did is a clear abuse of power and executive authority that undermines the democratic process our country was built on.

Reading between the lines and warping intended meaning is not something that should be done to the Constitution to support political moves. Whether or not the budget itself is a good thing isn’t the point — the point is that we shouldn’t be allowing our governor to set dangerous precedents for other leaders to follow.

Long-term educational stability is not worth what can potentially come from telling government leaders they can manipulate and assign meaning to state constitutions to fit their agendas.

While Wisconsin lawmakers still have the opportunity to override the governor’s vetoes, this is nearly impossible since Republicans in the Senate and the Assembly no longer have the two thirds supermajority they need to override a veto without help from the Democratic party, which leads me to my next issue.

There is simply no way that every Democratic lawmaker agrees with Evers’ veto, but the party divide is so strong in Wisconsin that presumably none of them will want to go against a Democratic governor. Not every issue has to be a party issue — some things are simply wrong.

You can both be an advocate for the funding of public education, while recognizing that the ends don’t justify the means in this case. There are ways to go about achieving what you want without setting a precedent of governmental manipulation of the Constitution.

Long term funding for public education is a cause I stand firmly behind, but allowing our government leaders to abuse their executive authority is something I simply cannot support, and I do not see how anyone could. And as a student at a public university, I would not want the funding of my education resting on dirty political moves.