Legislative Management directs committee to draft post‑session veto procedures after conflicting AG and governor interpretations

Legislative Management voted to direct the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee to draft statutory procedures for handling post‑session vetoes and to report back within 90 days.

Members said the step responds to an Attorney General opinion that, in their view, left ambiguity about the scope and effect of item vetoes, and to subsequent actions by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the committee said appeared to follow part of that opinion but not all of it.

The committee’s action, moved by Leader Lefort and seconded by Senator Hogan, instructs the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee (LPA) to develop a plan for a future statutory “veto day,” supplemental statutory language for veto returns, and procedures to clarify how post‑adjournment vetoes should be effectuated; the committee was asked to report back within 90 days. The motion carried.

“Part of this is attorney consultation,” legislative counsel Mr. Bjornsson told the committee when explaining the scope of a possible executive‑session discussion about litigation. He said LPA could consider a package of changes including whether to codify a post‑session override session and how veto returns should be marked.

Senator Hogan said the issue goes beyond the present veto: “we have to look at this as an opportunity to view when and how we veto in general,” and urged deliberate, broad consideration rather than rushing to an immediate override. Senator Meerdal and others raised concerns after news reports that OMB would withhold $150,000 from an appropriation even though the Attorney General’s opinion described a larger $10,000,000 appropriation line as removed; committee members said the mixed responses illustrated the legal uncertainty they want to resolve legislatively.

Several members argued for a prospective fix rather than immediate litigation. Speaker Weiss said pursuing the Supreme Court risked uncertain results and could still leave the underlying statutory ambiguity unresolved, and recommended LPA draft statutory language to prevent recurrence. Representative Bosch asked that LPA prepare a draft bill to have available if a special session is called; Leader Lefort incorporated that request into his motion.

Chairman Hogue and staff confirmed that the directive to LPA may be pursued in combination with other options — including litigation or a special session — but that the committee’s work is intended to produce statutory clarity so future veto returns are handled consistently.

The committee did not take immediate formal legal action beyond the directive to LPA; members discussed, but did not authorize, litigation or an immediate reconvened veto vote. The committee recorded the motion as carried and directed LPA to return with a work product within approximately 90 days.