Legal services brief Senate Finance on whether governor can veto repeal language to increase appropriations
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Legislative Legal Services told the Senate Finance Committee the Alaska Constitution's line-item veto (Article II, Section 15) allows the governor to "strike or reduce" appropriation items; the memo flagged a legal question about whether striking a repeal of a prior appropriation effectively increases that appropriation, a question the Alaska Supreme Court has not squarely decided.
Legislative Legal Services on Feb. 11 briefed the Senate Finance Committee on a constitutional question about the governor's line-item veto power and whether it can be used to strike language that repealed previously enacted appropriations, with the practical effect of restoring or increasing those appropriations.
"Article 2, section 15 of the Alaska Constitution grants the governor the power by veto to strike or reduce items in appropriation bills," said Emily Nauman, director of Legislative Legal Services. She told the committee that the central question is "whether that line item veto power in the Alaska Constitution grants the governor the power to use that veto power in a way that has the effect of increasing an amount reduced by the legislature."
Nauman and Ray Marks (legislative counsel) reviewed Alaska Supreme Court precedent, citing the Knowles decision, which the memo said interpreted "strike" and "reduce" as actions that diminish an appropriation. The memo explained the Knowles court treated "strike" as quantitatively similar to "reduce," typically meaning to lessen an amount or reduce it to nothing. That decision, the memo said, addressed whether the governor can strike non-monetary language that does not appropriate a sum for a particular purpose; it did not squarely resolve whether striking a repeal of an appropriation is permissible under the Constitution.
Senators asked clarifying questions about the definition of an "item" in the Knowles decision and whether the court would need to overrule or clarify its precedent to accept the broader argument that "strike" simply removes language from a bill rather than reducing an appropriation's amount. Nauman told the committee the court could clarify its prior language and that the issue had not yet been definitively decided by the Alaska Supreme Court.
Why it matters: if the governor's veto power can be used to nullify legislative reductions by striking repeal language, it would affect separation of powers and the legislature's control over appropriations. The committee placed the issue on the table for member awareness and possible future action.