Legislative Management reviewed an attorney general opinion responding to the governor’s request about an erroneous veto and expressed concern that the opinion could alter longstanding expectations about item vetoes, prompting a motion that directed Legislative Council to compile legal and procedural options for the committee to consider.

Emily Thompson of Legislative Council legal staff summarized the issue: the governor returned Senate Bill 2014 with Section 7 struck out on the face of the bill but in an objection letter stated he intended to veto only a single $150,000 pass-through grant within Section 7. The attorney general concluded the veto letter (the governor’s written objections) is the legally operative document and that markings on the bill serve only as a visual aid; the opinion therefore treated the governor’s description in the veto letter as controlling even where it conflicts with pen-and-ink markings on the bill.

Thompson and members cited controlling precedent from the North Dakota Supreme Court in Legislative Assembly v. Burgum (2018), which states the governor cannot withdraw a veto by agreement with the attorney general and that striking words or numbers on the bill has legal effect. Committee members noted the Burgum decision emphasized that subtraction of vetoed items from the larger appropriation is the legal operation of an item veto and argued the attorney general opinion did not reference that precedent or address the deduction the court requires when part of an appropriation is disapproved.

Members raised separation-of-powers concerns and the practical problem that an attorney general opinion that allows a veto letter to supersede markings on the bill could leave the legislative branch without a clear, paper record to consult when deciding whether to override a veto. Representative LaFoure, Leader Ista and Senator Hogan asked staff to produce options, including potential original-jurisdiction filings in state supreme court to seek declaratory relief and injunctions, an October or early reconvening to consider overrides, and statutory changes that would require the governor to accompany veto letters with identifiable pen-and-ink markings or require stricter return procedures for vetoed items.

Members voted to instruct Legislative Council to prepare a memorandum of options (motion carried by voice vote) within days so Legislative Management could decide whether to pursue court action, call a special veto session, propose clarifying legislation at the next session, or accept the AG opinion’s formulation.

Thompson noted practical timelines: funds at issue were scheduled for transfer July 1 and the court options (original jurisdiction writs, mandamus, injunction) could be filed quickly but may proceed at different speeds than a legislative reconvening; she recommended swift staff work to provide pros and cons for each route. Management approved the request and tasked staff to return with options.