_____________
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 669 in its entirety.
This bill would, if certain criteria apply, create immunity from civil and criminal liability for motor vehicle sellers and would provide that a seller is not responsible for local ordinance violations committed involving the motor vehicle.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to creating unnecessarily broad immunity from civil and criminal liability. I appreciate the bill attempts to clarify the law involving a seller’s liability after a vehicle is sold; however, under current statutory and common law, sellers are already generally not liable in the situations described by the bill’s authors. Where only minor alterations to current law may be needed, the bill is over prescriptive in addressing the issues it seeks to resolve. I am concerned, for instance, this bill would preempt any basis for a seller’s liability, including liability arising out of the sale of the vehicle, except in very limited circumstances.
As I said in my veto message for 2021 Senate Bill 570, I believe the presumption should be an open courthouse door to anyone seeking justice and an honest debate of the law of the land, and any immunity or deviation from that presumption should be tailored and finite. Unfortunately, the immunities created by this bill are too broad and could be better tailored to address a seller’s liability after the vehicle is sold.
_____________
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 957 in its entirety.
This bill prohibits a political subdivision from enacting certain regulations for an animal facility in an area that is zoned exclusively or primarily for agricultural use, unless the activity affected presents a substantial threat to public health or safety or the regulations are otherwise specifically authorized. Specifically, political subdivisions may not establish: (1) animal welfare standards that are more stringent than those in state law or regulations; (2) medication and vaccination requirements that are not required or prohibited under state law or regulations; (3) limits on the use of animals while in or after leaving an animal facility, except as provided in state law or regulations; or (4) limits on the species of animal that may be raised or kept in an area that is zoned exclusively or primarily for agricultural use. The bill further provides that existing local ordinances, resolutions, or orders that conflict with the bill may not be enforced unless the regulated activity presents a substantial threat to public health or safety.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety for several reasons. First, I object to removing control over animal welfare standards from local authorities and preempting their ability to pass ordinances with the interests of their community in mind. This bill removes the ability for local residents in municipalities throughout the state to engage in self-government by passing local ordinances related to animal welfare in animal facilities.
I am also vetoing this bill because I object to potentially revoking, simply through conflict with the provisions of this bill, existing ordinances related to animal welfare that voters in municipalities throughout the state have enacted through ballot measures.
Finally, I am vetoing this bill because of the potential impact on enforcement of animal welfare regulations at the local level. The broad language included in this bill may result in local municipalities not pursuing other enforceable ordinances that protect animal welfare due to lack of clarity with respect to the scope of the restrictions in this bill.
_____________
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 1030 in its entirety.
This bill would prohibit the Department of Natural Resources from establishing an antlerless-only deer hunting season in the northern forest deer management zone and from issuing hunting authorizations for antlerless deer in the northern forest deer management zone. Any authorization that the department issues for a deer-hunting season in the northern forest deer management zone that is open only to hunters under the age of 16 may only authorize the killing of one deer, which may be antlered or antlerless. The bill also prohibits the department from issuing more than one authorization for an antlered deer in the northern forest deer management zone during an open season for hunting deer with a bow and arrow or crossbow, or from issuing more than one authorization during an open season for hunting deer with a muzzle-loading firearm or a firearm. These provisions would be in effect for four years.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to circumventing the established County Deer Advisory Council process, which provides opportunities for public input on proposed deer population estimates and harvest quotas. The councils may recommend a bucks-only season based on population estimates and feedback from the public. Many deer management units have successfully implemented bucks-only hunts in recent years due to concerns over low deer population estimates.
I am also vetoing this bill because I object to limiting the ability of the Department of Natural Resources and other public and private landowners to respond to local deer population levels. Deer distribution varies across the northern forest zone and effective management requires a variety of solutions to address locally overabundant deer populations. This bill would limit flexibility for landowners to address issues on their properties that may be influenced by unique habitat factors.
Balancing the goal of providing hunters with successful hunting experiences and ensuring healthy forest habitats in Northern Wisconsin requires both collaboration and the flexibility to address challenges as they arise. The one-size-fits-all solution proposed in this bill does not strike this balance, as it limits property owners from making decisions to best manage their land and disregards public input provided via County Deer Advisory Councils.
_____________
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 1065 in its entirety.
This bill prohibits any University of Wisconsin System institution or Wisconsin Technical College System district board from requiring applicants for admission or financial aid, students, student groups, or faculty to pledge an allegiance to, support for, or opposition to a political ideology or movement, including with respect to diversity, equity, or inclusion, as a condition of admission or financial aid, recognition or funding for a student organization, or certain employment-based considerations (including hiring, performance reviews, promotions, and research approval). Additionally, institutions and district boards may not request or require such pledges and may not grant admission or financial aid, provide recognition or funding for a student organization (or withhold such recognition or funding), or hire, reappoint, or promote faculty on the basis of the viewpoints expressed in such a pledge.
Under current law, no individual may be discriminated against or be denied admission to, or participation, in a higher education institution due to an individual’s race, color creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or marital or parental status. Further, according to the University of Wisconsin System’s testimony on the bill, System does not require any systemwide written or spoken loyalty pledge to any political ideology or movement for any employee or student. I am therefore vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to it as duplicative and unnecessary.
_____________
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 1089 in its entirety.
This bill would modify certain interest rates that the Department of Revenue (DOR) applies to unpaid taxes and fees that are not yet delinquent and to overpayments of amounts to be refunded. These modifications include reducing the current law rate of 12 percent per year applicable to certain late, nondelinquent taxes and fees owed to DOR to six percent per year and increasing the interest rate on certain overpayments of taxes and fees refunded by DOR from three percent per year to six percent per year. The bill would further modify the interest rate reduction on delinquent taxes that may be available in cases where the Secretary of Revenue determines that the reduction is fair and equitable, from the current law reduced rate of 12 percent per year to six percent per year. The bill would reduce general fund revenues by $41.5 million in fiscal year 2024- 25 and $80.5 million in fiscal year 2025-26.
I am vetoing this bill because I object to its substantial costs at a time when the Wisconsin State Legislature has refused to make meaningful, sustainable investments to reduce out-of-pocket child care costs for working families, ensure child care providers can continue to operate, expand paid leave, improve high-speed internet statewide, and prevent higher education campus closures and layoffs, among other key areas of public investment.
Moreover, this bill, combined with others, could result in the state having to repay billions of dollars it received under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, completely reversing even under the best projected economic circumstances the progress we have made toward improving our state’s fiscal condition.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
