Wisconsin Supreme Court hearing case over education powers

MADISON — The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn a nearly 20-year-old ruling that protected powers of the state superintendent of schools from being taken away by the Legislature or governor.

The court heard arguments Tuesday in a case challenging a 2011 law that gives the governor the power to approve and block administrative rules being enacted by the state superintendent.

Lower courts have struck down the law as it applied to state Superintendent Tony Evers and the department he oversees.

Attorneys for Evers, parents and education groups challenging the law are urging the court not to overturn the 1996 ruling that stopped then-Gov. Tommy Thompson from placing the education department under his control.

Assistant Attorney General David Meany says the Legislature can change who has rule-making authority.

Evers issued the following statement Tuesday:

“Direct election of our leaders is at the center of our democracy. The people of Wisconsin have twice elected me to be their state superintendent of public instruction. I take that responsibility to be the champion and leader for our kids, their parents, and our public schools very seriously.

This case was brought by private citizens concerned about protecting our state’s constitution. This case is really about continuing the administrative rule making authority of the Legislature and elected state superintendent, preserving the constitutional roles that have existed since 1848.

The framers of the Wisconsin Constitution intended that the state’s public education system be overseen by the state superintendent of public instruction, an independent, nonpartisan constitutional officer directly elected by the people. This case simply seeks to preserve this arrangement by ensuring the state superintendent and Legislature determine rules and policies that guide the education of our children.

I look to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to affirm the conservative, strict interpretations of two lower court rulings in this case. Now is not the time for activist court rulings that overturn long-standing constitutional precedence.”