Line-item veto in the United States

Last updated

In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes.

Contents

Governors

Forty-four of the 50 U.S. states give their governors some form of line-item veto power; Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont are the exceptions. [1] The Mayor of Washington, D.C., also has this power. [2] [3]

Wisconsin

The Governor of Wisconsin is empowered with a sweeping line-item veto. Wisconsin governors have the power to strike out words, numbers, and even entire sentences from appropriations bills. [4]

According to scholars, Wisconsin has used four types of extraordinary partial vetoes. [5] The first, the "digit veto", was first used by Governor Patrick Lucey in 1973. In appropriation for $25 million, he vetoed the digit 2, resulting in an appropriation of $5 million. [5] Just two years later, Lucey introduced the "editing veto". In this instance, the word "not" was removed in the phrase "not less than 50 percent", thus resulting in the opposite effect than desired by the legislature. [6] In 1983, an even more extreme version, the "pick-a-letter" or "Vanna White veto" was introduced. Governor Anthony Earl edited a 121-word, five-sentence paragraph down to a one-sentence, 22-word paragraph to change an appeals process from the courts to the Public Service Commission. The final version, the "reduction veto", was introduced in 1993 by Governor Tommy Thompson. This resulted in a legislatively-appropriated amount being reduced arbitrarily by the governor. [5] This unprecedented usage has resulted in eight lawsuits and numerous amendment proposals. In the first lawsuit, State ex. rel. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Henry, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized the absolute partial veto power of the Governor as long as a workable, complete law remained, stating the governor had "the right to pass independently on every separable piece of legislation in an appropriation bill." [7]

In his first two terms as governor, Thompson used 1,500 line-item vetoes to cancel a total of $150 million in spending; none of these vetoes were overridden. [4] The only judicial limitation was Risser v. Klauser, which prohibited the "reduction veto", stating that "the constitution prohibits a write-in veto of monetary figures which are not appropriation amounts." [8] In 2009, a constitutional amendment was passed abolishing the "Vanna White veto". [5] Yet, in 2011, Governor Scott Walker controversially crossed out 116 words in a pension-related section of the budget bill. [9]

In 2023, Governor Tony Evers used a line-item veto to extend what was supposed to be a two year temporary funding increase for schools to last over 400 years. [10]

Confederate States

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Confederate States, adopted just before the start of the American Civil War, would have granted the President of the Confederate States the ability to "approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill," with such disapprovals returned to the Houses of Congress for reconsideration and potentially for override. [11]

Line-Item Veto Act of 1996

Clinton signing cancellation letters related to his Line-Item Vetoes for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, August 11, 1997. President William J. Clinton Signing Line Item Veto Letters - NARA - 77861673.jpg
Clinton signing cancellation letters related to his Line-Item Vetoes for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, August 11, 1997.

Presidents of the United States have repeatedly asked Congress to give them line-item veto power. [12] According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1984 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cut, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995. [13] Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York . The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times. [14] [15]

Subsequent developments

Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act in 1998, President George W. Bush asked Congress to enact legislation that would return the line-item veto power to the Executive Authority. First announcing his intent to seek such legislation in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address, President Bush sent a legislative proposal, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006, to the Congress on March 6, 2006, urging its prompt passage. Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and John McCain (R-AZ), and Republican Whip Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) jointly introduced this proposal. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced his own version, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, in March of that year. [16]

On that same day, Joshua Bolten, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, gave a press conference on the President’s line-item veto proposal. Bolten explained that the proposed Act would give the President the ability to single out "wasteful" spending and to put such spending on hold. While the spending line-item is on hold, the President can send legislation to Congress to withdraw the particular line-item. The proposal would then be considered in both houses within ten days on an up or down basis and could be passed by a simple majority. Additionally, such proposals could not be filibustered.

When asked how this proposed legislation was different from the 1996 Line-Item Veto Act that the United States Supreme Court had declared illegal, Bolten said that whereas the former act granted unilateral authority to the Executive to disallow specific spending line items, the new proposal would seek Congressional approval of such line-item vetoes. Thus, for the President to successfully withdraw previously enacted spending, a simple majority of Congress is required to agree to specific legislation to that effect.

Though the 2006 line-item veto proposal was much weaker than the 1996 version, it nevertheless failed to find strong support in Congress. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, called it "an offensive slap at Congress", asserting that the legislation would enable the President to intimidate individual members of any Congress by targeting the projects of his political opponents. He also complained that the line-item veto as proposed would take away Congress’s constitutional "power of the purse" and give it to the executive branch.

On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center, testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation. Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations.

H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act, was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006, by a vote of 24–9. It was approved in the full House on June 22. A similar version was included in the "Stop Over Spending Act of 2006", [17] authored by Senator Judd Gregg, in the Senate and approved by the Senate Budget Committee, but the full Senate failed to approve it, thereby preventing the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act from becoming law. [16]

Line Item Veto Re-Enactment Activity of 2009

In 2009, Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain introduced legislation of a limited version of the line-item veto. This bill would give the president the power to withdraw earmarks in new bills by sending the bill back to Congress minus the line-item vetoed earmark. Congress would then vote on the line-item vetoed bill with a majority vote under fast track rules to make any deadlines the bill had. [18] [19] [20] This bill was not passed. [21]

Debate

Some scholars, such as Louis Fisher, believe the line-item veto would give presidents too much power over government spending compared with the power of the Congress. [22] [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veto</span> Legal power to stop an official action, usually enactment of legislation

A veto is a legal power to unilaterally stop an official action. In the most typical case, a president or monarch vetoes a bill to stop it from becoming law. In many countries, veto powers are established in the country's constitution. Veto powers are also found at other levels of government, such as in state, provincial or local government, and in international bodies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Governor of Wisconsin</span> Head of state and of government of the U.S. state of Wisconsin

The governor of Wisconsin is the head of government of Wisconsin and the commander-in-chief of the state's army and air forces. The governor has a duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Wisconsin Legislature, to convene the legislature, and to grant pardons, except in cases of treason and impeachment. The position was first filled by Nelson Dewey on June 7, 1848, the year Wisconsin became a state. Prior to statehood, there were four governors of Wisconsin Territory.

The United States budget process is the framework used by Congress and the President of the United States to formulate and create the United States federal budget. The process was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and additional budget legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States House Committee on Appropriations</span> Standing committee of the United States House of Representatives

The United States House Committee on Appropriations is a committee of the United States House of Representatives that is responsible for passing appropriation bills along with its Senate counterpart. The bills passed by the Appropriations Committee regulate expenditures of money by the government of the United States. As such, it is one of the most powerful committees, and its members are seen as influential.

In legislative procedure, a rider is an additional provision added to a bill or other measure under the consideration by a legislature, which may or may not have much, if any, connection with the subject matter of the bill.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colorado Senate</span> Upper house of Colorado General Assembly

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the line-item veto, as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that the line-item veto gave the President power over legislation unintended by the Constitution, and was therefore an overstep in their duties.

The legislative veto was a feature of dozens of statutes enacted by the United States federal government between approximately 1930 and 1980, until held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983). It is a provision whereby Congress passes a statute granting authority to the President and reserving for itself the ability to override, through simple majority vote, individual actions taken by the President pursuant to that authority.

Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. The Act removed that power, and Train v. City of New York, closed potential loopholes in the 1974 Act. The president's ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed.

The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Signing statement</span>

A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed in the Federal Register's Compilation of Presidential Documents and the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN). The statements offer the president's view of the law or laws created by the bill.

This is a brief description of the lawmaking procedure in India.

The Constitution of the State of Wisconsin is the governing document of the U.S. State of Wisconsin. It establishes the structure and function of state government, describes the state boundaries, and declares the rights of state citizens. The Wisconsin Constitution was written at a constitutional convention held in Madison, Wisconsin, in December 1847 and approved by the citizens of Wisconsin Territory in a referendum held in March 1848. Wisconsin was admitted to the United States on May 29, 1848. Although it has been amended over a hundred times, the original constitution ratified in 1848 is still in use. This makes the Wisconsin Constitution the oldest U.S. state constitution outside of New England. Only Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island use older constitutions.

An earmark is a provision inserted into a discretionary spending appropriations bill that directs funds to a specific recipient while circumventing the merit-based or competitive funds allocation process. Earmarks feature in United States Congress spending policy, and they are present in public finance of many other countries as a form of political particularism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma state budget</span> Budget of a U.S. state

The Budget of the State of Oklahoma is the governor's proposal to the Oklahoma Legislature which recommends funding levels to operate the state government for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1. Legislative decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the state budget process.

The line-item veto, also called the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that authorizes a chief executive to reject particular provisions of a bill enacted by a legislature without vetoing the entire bill. Many countries have different standards for invoking the line-item veto if it exists at all. Each country or state has its own particular requirement for overriding a line-item veto.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appropriations bill (United States)</span> Bill which allocates government spending

In the United States Congress, an appropriations bill is legislation to appropriate federal funds to specific federal government departments, agencies and programs. The money provides funding for operations, personnel, equipment and activities. Regular appropriations bills are passed annually, with the funding they provide covering one fiscal year. The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government, which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year. Appropriations bills are under the jurisdiction of the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. Both Committees have twelve matching subcommittees, each tasked with working on one of the twelve annual regular appropriations bills.

<i>Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton</i> 2017 Minnesota Supreme Court case

The Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton,, was a 2017 Minnesota Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that Governor Mark Dayton's line item vetoes of appropriations for the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House of Representatives were a lawful exercise of his authority granted by the Minnesota Constitution. The Court also ruled that since the state legislature had access to other funding to continue operating as a fully functioning and independent branch of government, the governor's vetoes did not effectively abolish the legislature and thereby violate Article III of the state constitution. The Court also ruled that the judicial branch did not have the constitutional authority to order funding without a corresponding budgetary appropriation. The Supreme Court's ruling overturned an earlier ruling by a Ramsey County District Court judge. The case marked the first time in which the Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to resolve a lawsuit brought by one branch of government against another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veto power in the United States</span>

In the United States, the president can use the veto power to prevent a bill passed by the Congress from becoming law. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both chambers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Veto power in Illinois</span>

The veto power in Illinois exists in the state government as well as many municipal and some county governments. The gubernatorial veto power is established in the Illinois Constitution, and is one of the most comprehensive vetoes in the United States. It began as a suspensive veto exercised jointly with the Supreme Court but has grown stronger in each of the state's four constitutions. The gubernatorial veto power consists of two vetoes that apply to all bills passed by the General Assembly and two vetoes that apply only to appropriations measures.

References

  1. ↑ "Gubernatorial Veto Authority with Respect to Major Budget Bill(s)". National Conference of State Legislatures.
  2. ↑ District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Pub. L.   93–198 , 87  Stat.   777 , enacted December 24, 1973)
  3. ↑ Smith, Gregory. "R.I. Gov. Lincoln Chafee says governors in 46 states have line-item veto authority". Politifact. Providence Journal. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
  4. 1 2 Apple, R.W., Jr. "Line-Item Veto Would Begin Voyage Into a Vast Unknown", New York Times, March 27, 1995.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Radatz, Clark G. (January 2004). The Partial Veto in Wisconsin (PDF). Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 17, 2013. Retrieved November 14, 2012.
  6. ↑ Sabato, Larry J. (2007). A More Perfect Constitution . New York: Walker & Company. pp.  284–285. ISBN   978-0-8027-1621-7.
  7. ↑ State ex. rel. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Henry, 218Wis.302 , 314-315(Wis.1935).
  8. ↑ Risser v. Klauser, 207Wis. 2d176 , 191(Wis.1997).
  9. ↑ Rothschild, Matthew (July 6, 2011). "Gov. Walker Uses "Vanna White Veto" to Rob New Public Sector Workers". The Progressive. Archived from the original on January 7, 2017. Retrieved November 14, 2012.
  10. ↑ Griffiths, Brent D. "Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers thwarted Republicans with a creative veto that increases school funding for the next 400 years". Business Insider.
  11. ↑ "Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861". Avalon Project.
  12. ↑ Madison, Lucy (August 10, 2012). "15 years after its brief existence, line-item veto eludes presidents". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  13. ↑ "Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union". Transcript. The American Presidency Project. January 24, 1995. Retrieved October 4, 2013.
  14. ↑ "Supreme Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto". CNN. June 25, 1998. Archived from the original on October 8, 2008.
  15. ↑ "History of Line Item Veto Notices". National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on February 4, 2012. Retrieved February 1, 2006.
  16. 1 2 109th Congress (2006) (March 7, 2006). "H.R. 4890 (109th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved October 15, 2018. Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006
  17. ↑ S.3521 Stop Over Spending Act of 2006
  18. ↑ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine : "Feingold, McCain, Ryan Introduce Line-item Veto to Curb Wasteful Spending". YouTube. Video of reintroduction of Line Item Veto Bill March 4, 2009
  19. ↑ "Feingold, McCain, Ryan Introduce Line-item Veto to Curb Wasteful Spending". United States Senate. March 4, 2009. Archived from the original on January 5, 2011.
  20. ↑ "Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs". whitehouse.gov . February 25, 2009 – via National Archives.
  21. ↑ H.R. 1294 (111th) on GovTrack.us: : Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009
  22. ↑ Michael G. Locklar, Is the 1996 Line Item Veto Constitutional?, 34 Hous. L. Rev. 1161 (1997); Louis Fisher, State Techniques to Blunt the Governor's Item-Veto Power (1996) (CRS Report No. 96-996 GOV) (listing the tactics used in states "to counteract, blunt, or neutralize the governor's item-veto power"); Legislative Line-Item Veto Proposals: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on the Budget, 103rd Cong. 60 (1994) (statement of Louis Fisher); Richard Briffault, The Item Veto in State Courts, 66 Temple L. Rev. 1171, 1181 (1993) (describing how legislative control over the definition of "item" has eroded the power of governors who have the line-item veto); Louis Fisher & Neal Devins, How Successfully Can the States' Item Veto be Transferred to the President?, 75 Geo. L. J. 159 (1986).
  23. ↑ Curry, James A.; Riley, Richard B.; Battistoni, Richard M.: Constitutional Government", Kendall Hunt, 2009, pg. 146
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.