hist195038I am vetoing Senate Bill 216 in its entirety. This bill would allow all-terrain and utility terrain vehicles to be equipped with whip lights that emit any color in a fixed display.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to allowing all-terrain vehicles and utility terrain vehicles to utilize lights and light patterns that could be ambiguous. First, whip lights could be confused for lights emitted by law enforcement or emergency vehicles. Law enforcement vehicles frequently use non-flashing red and blue lights, and this bill would allow all terrain vehicle and utility terrain vehicle operators to do the same. Second, because whip lights are visible from any direction, the bill would allow for nonstandard lighting configurations such as red lights from the front of a vehicle or white lights from the rear of a vehicle. Such nonstandard lighting configurations could make it difficult to ascertain the direction of travel of an all-terrain vehicle or utility terrain vehicle, increasing the risk of collisions.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
March 29, 2024
The Honorable, the Senate:
hist195039I am vetoing Senate Bill 217 in its entirety. This bill would allow one passenger to ride on an all-terrain or utility terrain vehicle that is not designed or intended for use by passengers if the passenger is in a second seated position.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to compromising the safety of riders and operators of all-terrain and utility terrain vehicles. As I stated in my partial veto of 2019 Wisconsin Act 183, if an all-terrain or utility terrain vehicle is not designed for passengers, then it should not be operated with passengers. I agree with law enforcement and the medical community that the safe transportation of passengers is essential to the prevention of injuries and fatalities associated with all-terrain and utility terrain vehicle usage. Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
March 29, 2024
The Honorable, the Senate:
hist195040I am vetoing Senate Bill 316 in its entirety. This bill would make changes to the Department of Natural Resources' aquatic plant management program. The bill would create a specific definition of a private pond and then provide exemptions from the permitting process for the application of a chemical treatment to certain private ponds if specific requirements are met, and for the application of certain biological agents and dyes to private ponds. Additionally, this bill would make aquatic plant management permits valid for not less than five years for private ponds that are larger than five acres in size.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to providing an exemption from the permitting process as outlined in this bill for certain private ponds. As I stated in my veto of 2021 Senate Bill 494, these exemptions could have a major impact on Wisconsin's waters. Prior to issuing a permit for chemical treatment, the Department of Natural Resources reviews the body of water to determine if there are any known endangered, threatened or special concern species located at the site. The department can then tailor the management plan to minimize the impact on these species. By removing the permit requirement, this valuable check would be lost, and important species may be inadvertently harmed. I also object to allowing the owner of one single parcel of land which a private pond abuts to conduct chemical treatment of a private pond without the consent of all owners of the parcels of which the private pond abuts when the private pond abuts multiple parcels.
The oversight provided through the permitting process is important, and I object to putting Wisconsin waters at risk by eliminating this protection.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
March 29, 2024
The Honorable, the Senate:
hist195041I am vetoing Senate Bill 335 in its entirety. This bill allows any school district to employ a school district administrator who does not hold any type of license from the Department of Public Instruction.
This concept is a non-starter.
Under current law, with very limited exception, every school district administrator in Wisconsin must hold an administrator license issued by the Department of Public Instruction, a license requiring the holder to maintain other licensure, have six semesters of teaching or pupil services experience-including over 540 hours of classroom teaching-and complete an educator preparatory program specialist degree or doctoral degree. We maintain these high standards for good reason: Wisconsinites entrust school district administrators with the important responsibilities of leading our local school districts and educating our kids. This bill would effectively eliminate all such requirements.
I am vetoing this Republican-backed bill in its entirety because I object to allowing any individual who has no license, no education, no training, no experience, no specific skillsets, and virtually no qualifications whatsoever to not only become a school district administrator but to come into everyday contact with kids in our schools.
As a governor who is a father and grandfather and former educator, principal, superintendent, and state superintendent, I cannot sign a bill that could have us entrust one of our most precious responsibilities to any given individual whose only qualification is a mere passing interest in education.
What's best for our kids is what's best for our state. We have a constitutional obligation to provide public education, and Wisconsinites expect our kids to be educated and taught by the best, brightest, and most qualified people. Our kids deserve nothing less.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
March 29, 2024
The Honorable, the Senate:
hist195042I am vetoing Senate Bill 466 in its entirety. This bill would prohibit a payment card network or its agent from requiring the use of a firearms code approved by the International Organization for Standardization as a merchant category code in a way that distinguishes a firearms retailer from general merchandise or sporting goods retailers.
The bill would require the Attorney General to investigate alleged violations of this prohibition and to pursue an injunction in the event of a continuing violation. It would also, subject to certain exceptions, prohibit a payment card issuer or payment card network or its agents from declining or refusing to process a lawful payment card transaction at a firearms retailer based solely on whether a firearms code is assigned. The bill would also prohibit state agencies or local governments from maintaining a list of people who own firearms, except for purposes of criminal investigations, prosecutions, or determining compliance with court orders or injunctions. Under the bill, the Department of Justice must ensure that records from background checks resulting from firearm purchases are not stored, maintained or formatted into a list that identifies firearm owners prior to the destruction of these records.
I am vetoing this bill for several reasons. First, I am vetoing this bill because I object to the Legislature inserting itself into the decision-making process of the private sector. Businesses use merchant category codes for various reasons, including (among other things) fraud protection, risk management, rewards, determining interchange rates and tax reporting. As they do for virtually every other business and industry, payment card issuers and networks are in the best position to determine which merchant category codes they use to conduct business. No other merchant category code is prohibited by state law. I am also concerned that carving out and prohibiting the use of merchant category codes for one industry, for political purposes-, would set a precedent for other industries and undermine the business judgment of the private sector.
I am also vetoing this bill because I object to legislation that is confusing, contradictory and administratively burdensome for the private sector to comply with. Although the bill would not prohibit declining or refusing to process a lawful payment card transaction for reasons other than solely the assignment or nonassignment of a firearms code, the bill includes additional specifically identified exceptions, casting doubt on the intended scope of the prohibition. I am concerned that these exceptions are contradictory and not clear enough for businesses to comply with the bill and conduct their business.
I am further vetoing this bill because I object to the chilling effect that it could have on criminal investigations, prosecutions, and determining compliance with court orders. Despite the bill including these purposes as exceptions to the general prohibition on maintaining gun ownership lists, I am concerned that they are not strong enough to overcome the additional administrative burdens, which could cause second-guessing and paralysis that would jeopardize public and community safety.
Finally, I am vetoing this bill because I object to its encroachment on executive authority. The bill requires the Attorney General to take certain, specific enforcement actions, including pursuing an injunction against a person found to be violating the prohibitions against using firearms codes. By curbing the Attorney General's authority and discretion to pursue appropriate legal remedies, the bill could run afoul of the separation of powers under the Wisconsin Constitution.
I once again invite the Legislature to have a meaningful, thoughtful dialogue about common-sense solutions to address gun violence that will both respect and uphold Wisconsinites' rights while keeping our communities safe.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
March 29, 2024
The Honorable, the Senate:
hist195043I am vetoing Senate Bill 517 in its entirety. The bill would prohibit the issuance of judicial complaints and John Doe proceedings if the district attorney refused to issue charges because the person to be charged has a privilege of self-defense or defense of others and there is no new evidence that the person was not acting in self-defense or defense of others.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety, which received bipartisan opposition, because I object to broadly restricting a courts' ability to issue criminal complaints in a process designed to hold individuals accountable when there is probable cause to believe a crime has occurred.
I have previously objected to proposals that would restrict the discretion of prosecutors and judges to meaningfully consider and address the circumstances before them. Further, I am concerned this bill would create an imbalance in the justice system and could infringe upon the rights of crime victims and their families under article I, section 9m of the Wisconsin Constitution by incentivizing accused perpetrators to claim self-defense to avoid accountability, thereby preventing crime victims from receiving justice they are duly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
March 29, 2024
The Honorable, the Senate:
This bill would create a program administered by the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to award up to $2 million to a political subdivision (defined as a city, village, town, or county) to assist in the costs of redevelopment of University of Wisconsin branch campus buildings and facilities that will no longer be used for an academic purpose. The bill appropriates $20 million GPR to the Joint Committee on Finance supplemental appropriation for the program. Under the bill, grants must contribute to the overall economic improvement and enhancement of the community. The bill requires the political subdivision to: i) submit community letters of support for the grant, ii) match 20 percent of the grant amount from local sources, and iii) submit a report to the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation and the Legislature detailing how grant amounts were spent. The bill also requires that the first award of up to $2 million be made to Richland County, followed by awards of up to $2 million to each of Fond du Lac, Washington and Marinette counties, before awards may be made to other political subdivisions. Further, the bill requires the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to request that the Joint Committee on Finance supplement the appropriation created by the bill upon receiving a grant application by a political subdivision if the corporation determines that the grant requirements are met. The corporation must submit separate requests for each grant to be awarded.
I have exercised the partial veto with respect to section 3 as it relates to s. 238.145 (2)(a), (2)(c)2., (2)(e) and (2)(f) to remove restrictive requirements that would: i) prohibit the use of grants for the redevelopment of facilities that are or will be used for academic purposes, ii) create the 20 percent matching requirement, iii) require that grants be made to select counties before grants may be made to other political subdivisions and iv) require the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation submit separate requests to the Joint Committee on Finance for each grant to be awarded because I object to these unnecessary and restrictive provisions. I trust local partners to know what is best needed to support economic development in their own communities and they should have as much flexibility as possible to make the decisions necessary. For example, some communities may consider using these facilities for academic purposes in partnership with local school districts or technical colleges, and the state grant program should be open to these partnerships.
I also am not interested in reinforcing the Wisconsin State Legislature's ongoing unconstitutional obstruction of basic government functions through delays at the Joint Committee on Finance. Similarly, I object to the requirements that a certain subset of counties must first receive their awards under the program before any others may receive funding, which could cause delays in certain counties receiving critical funds if the counties required to receive funding first do not submit grant applications in a timely manner. Under the bill, the maximum amount that could be awarded to Richland, Fond du Lac, Washington and Marinette Counties is $8 million, but the remaining $12 million could not benefit any other counties in the meantime. As modified by my partial veto, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation would still be required to award grants to these counties, but other counties could still submit applications to receive critical resources without experiencing unnecessary delays.
Additionally, I object to the requirement that the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation must submit separate requests for each individual grant to be awarded, again creating unnecessarily cumbersome process that could delay efforts at redeveloping these facilities.
I support the efforts by the Legislature and stakeholders to provide these critical investments to local communities being adversely affected by branch campus closures.
Respectfully submitted,
TONY EVERS
Governor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
