On May 13, Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) filed a counterclaim against the JFC and Legislature in the ongoing legal case associated with Gov. Evers partial veto of the Act 100 bill. The bill designates a funding structure for the implementation of the early literacy programs associated with 2023 Wisconsin Act 20.
Here’s what we know as of today …
As per the DPI’s newsroom statement on the counterclaim, the DPI believes the lawsuit has, “a severe impact on the implementation of Act 20, which reimagines the way Wisconsin students are taught to read.”
The counterclaim was filed because the Joint Committee on Finance has not yet released over $49 million in funding allocated to the DPI for the implementation of Act 20 early literacy programs in our Wisconsin schools.
In the aforementioned newsroom statement, DPI’s Associate Deputy State Superintendent, Tom McCarthy, released the following statement:
The Department of Public Instruction would remind legislative leadership there is strong bipartisan support for Act 20, which will significantly improve reading instruction in Wisconsin. However, as the JCF sits on $49 million intended for school districts to implement the law, Wisconsin schools, educators, and students struggle to move forward. Every day of delay makes it increasingly difficult for schools to meet the requirements of Act 20 and makes it harder for students to learn to read, so they can read to learn.
And according to WisPolitics.com:
GOP lawmakers last month sued Evers in Dane County Circuit Court, arguing he inappropriately used his partial veto to rework provisions in legislation they approved to dictate how the $50 million is spent. The Governor can use a partial veto only on appropriation bills, and Republicans argue the legislation setting parameters didn’t actually spend any money.
Evers filed a response to the lawsuit and a counterclaim today accusing Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee of improperly delaying the release of the $50 million for the program.
The counterclaim argues state law allowing JFC the power to release funds to state agencies if they request it only applies to “unforeseen circumstances” or similar situations. In this case, the money was set aside in the state budget “for a specific purpose that the Legislature plainly foresaw.”
The second claim raised by Evers argues even if state law does give the committee discretion over whether to release the $50 million, the result would be unconstitutional.
The counterclaim argues the separation of powers bars the legislative branch “from exercising a legislative veto over the crediting of already-appropriated money to its intended executive branch recipient.”
Evers’ answer to the GOP lawsuit also argues if the court finds his partial veto was inappropriate, then the bill should be treated as if he’d never acted upon it and he should have the opportunity to decide whether to sign or veto it in full.
On June 6, State Superintendent, Dr. Jill Underly, released the following statement:
It has been almost one year since this bipartisan legislation was signed into law, yet the JCF still has not released 99% of the allocated $50 million in funding. Every day of delay makes it increasingly difficult to meet the requirements of Act 20 — a bipartisan law designed to help Wisconsin kids learn to read — and our children are the ones who will pay the price.
We have been working in partnership with the legislature throughout this process, and I know our shared goal is to improve literacy education and outcomes for all Wisconsin students. This week, we announced the hire of a Literacy Director to keep moving this work forward. We renew our call on the Joint Committee on Finance to release the allocated funding so we can meet our shared goal – helping kids learn to read, so they can read to learn.
We hope this information helps clarify what’s happening with Act 20 funding for early literacy programs in Wisconsin. We’re keeping a close eye on how things progress, as this case directly affects how Wisconsin students will (or will not) be educated. From a law standpoint, we’re interested in how this case is ruled, as it could set a precedent for future cases.