The Wisconsin Supreme Court Wednesday heard arguments on a case that could affect a popular state land protection program. The dispute over what’s known as the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program is part of a broader fight between Gov. Tony Evers (D), and Republicans who control the state legislature.
A ruling in favor of Evers would upend decades-old practices in the Legislature and make it easier to approve projects in a land stewardship program. But justices echoed concerns raised by Republicans that the case could have far broader impacts affecting the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. The court will issue its ruling in the coming weeks.
Last fall, Evers sued several GOP legislators, including Joint Finance Committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein. The case, known as Evers vs. Marklein, alleges the lawmakers violated the State Constitution when blocking some land purchases under the Stewardship program, and obstructing other Evers’ initiatives.
A couple months ago, the State Supreme Court agreed to take original jurisdiction on the part of the case pertaining to the Stewardship program, which for more than 30 years has been acquiring land from willing sellers to protect the state’s natural resources and provide more outdoor recreational areas. Original jurisdiction means not going through a trial court first.
The State Justice Department is representing the governor. Atty. Gen. Josh Kaul tells WUWM that the Republicans’ actions are harmful.
“Wisconsinites are being harmed. If anybody has watched how our state government has functioned, or in some cases, not functioned very well, you can see consequences from this kind of set-up. The way the system is supposed to work, is that the legislature passes a bill, and then the executive branch administers that law. But with these legislative vetoes like the one for the Stewardship program, a legislative committee that is not representative of the entire legislature, is able to then block actions from going forward. And we’ve seen cases where a single anonymous legislator can ever stop a policy from going forward that’s meant to benefit the entire state," Kaul says.
One example, says the Democrats, is along Lake Michigan just south of Port Washington.
That's the location of the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs, a nature preserve that the Ozaukee Washington Land Trust has been trying to protect for more than a decade. Trust Executive Director Tom Stolp says the property is a gem.
“Its undeveloped land, 134 acres, nearly three-quarters of a mile of Lake Michigan shoreline. And, we’re only 24 miles from downtown Milwaukee. I think the public access, and ease of access to this large scale natural area is really just incredible. We don’t have many opportunities like this left in southeast Wisconsin," Stolp tells WUWM.
For a while, it looked like the Stewardship fund would provide about $2.3 million to help purchase the land. But then, there was an anonymous objection from a member of the Joint Finance Committee, raising concerns about the cost of the potential purchase. Months later, Evers stepped in with that much money from the federal American Recovery Plan Act, and the clay bluffs have been saved.
Stolp thanks Evers, but says the legislature’s often-anonymous activism on Stewardship spending continues to be harmful.
“Speaking for our own community land trust and speaking with land trust leaders across the state of Wisconsin, this unpredictable process the Joint Finance Committee has created has had a chilling effect on land preservation happening not just in southeast Wisconsin, but across the entire state of Wisconsin. What you’re seeing is many land trusts and other community organizations pursuing only small projects," Stolp says.
Stolp says if groups request less that $250,000 in Stewardship funding, Joint Finance does not review the project. He says small land acquisitions can be very worthwhile, but given higher real-estate values in southeastern Wisconsin, potential larger purchases are on hold, and at least one deal has fallen through.
WUWM contacted Marklein’s office about the power struggle with the governor, but did not hear back.
At the State Supreme Court, conservative justice Rebecca Bradley issued a dissenting opinion to taking original jurisdiction on Evers vs. Marklein. The Milwaukee-area justice wrote that the court’s liberal majority ''refashions this court as the governor’s avenue for imposing policy changes without the consent of the governed.” Bradley says. “When the majority’s political allies say jump, the new majority responds, ‘How High?'”
But another dissenting conservative, Brian Hagedorn, acknowledges a decision in Evers vs. Marklein could bring a historic shift in the operation of state government.
