Legislative Management directs procedures committee to draft post‑session veto rules after split over AG opinion

At a meeting of the Legislative Management, members voted to direct the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee to draft statutory procedures for post‑session vetoes and to propose a standing “veto day” process, with a report back in 90 days to coincide with any potential special session.

Members said the action was prompted by conflicting interpretations of a recent line‑item veto and an attorney general opinion. Chairman Hogue read aloud language from the Legislative Council memo warning that the attorney general’s opinion “sets a dangerous precedent” by allowing the governor and attorney general to redefine the scope of item vetoes after adjournment. The committee discussed whether that uncertainty could erode the legislative assembly’s ability to know what a vetoed item contains when deciding whether to override.

Legislative Council staff member Mr. Bjornsson told the committee the attorney general’s opinion directed that $35,000,000 be spent but the director of the Office of Management and Budget told members the director intended to withhold $150,000. “So yes, it appears that part of the opinion is being followed and part of the opinion is apparently being somewhat ignored,” Bjornsson said, noting that discrepancy leaves discretion in executive branch officials and raises questions about future consistency.

Senator Hogan urged the committee to consider the broader question of legislative authority and when the legislature should use vetoes, saying lawmakers should be “intentional” about responses. Senator Beckettall and others recommended a prospective, statutory fix and noted other states have codified post‑session veto procedures. Leader Lafour moved the directive asking LPA to: (1) set a future veto day mechanism; (2) review the attorney general opinion and its effects; (3) draft statutory language for veto returns and post‑adjournment override sessions; and (4) report within 90 days so the work could be available for a possible special session. Senator Hogan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a roll call.

Committee members discussed related options — litigation, a special session to override the veto, or doing nothing — and repeatedly voiced concern about putting funds that are already allocated at risk. Several members said they prefer a legislative, prospective solution to avoid sending the question to the courts and to make the attorney general opinion effectively irrelevant going forward by changing the statute.

The committee also directed that, as part of the LPA work, staff prepare a draft bill so that if the assembly is reconvened for other contingencies the committee would be able to consider language promptly. The motion and roll call were recorded and the chair said the motion carried.