Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veto Transparency Pocket Veto topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs amendment to require governors to explain pocket vetoes
Summary
House Joint Resolution 2 would eliminate the practice of the governor allowing a bill to lapse without explanation (often called a "pocket veto") and require a written explanation for any veto in whole or in part. The committee gave the resolution a do‑pass recommendation by recorded vote.
Representative McQueen, sponsor of House Joint Resolution 2, told the committee the amendment does not limit the governor’s power to veto but would require a public explanation when the governor does not act on a bill and it therefore fails to become law.
McQueen said the change is intended to increase transparency: “It just asks for an explanation why,” he told the committee, adding that knowing the reason for a veto helps legislators address concerns in future sessions. He said the change would apply to a veto “in whole or in part,” including line‑item vetoes in appropriations bills.
Members asked detailed implementation questions. Representative Block asked whether a single, generic explanation—such as a short statement that a bill is contrary to the public interest—would satisfy the requirement or whether the amendment should demand a more specific, substantive explanation for each vetoed item. McQueen said the text requires an explanation but acknowledged it does not define how detailed that explanation must be; members discussed adopting a more specific standard or a standardized message form in later work.
Public commenters on Zoom and in the room signaled support; one commenter, Claudia Reisner, was recorded as in support. Members also discussed scope: the sponsor said the requirement would cover line‑item vetoes and that a governor would therefore need to state a reason for vetoing a specific capital‑outlay item or other line items.
The committee moved and recorded a do‑pass recommendation on HJR 2. The motion was seconded and the chair announced the committee vote was 8 in favor and 1 opposed. Committee members suggested staff and sponsor consider language that would require a “substantive” or “detailed” explanation rather than a single, perfunctory sentence; the sponsor said he is open to that refinement.
If voters approve the constitutional amendment, governors would still retain veto power but the public would receive an explicit, recorded reason when the executive declines to act on legislation.
