Reeves stated that he vetoed the “questionable spending earmarks” by the Legislature in this bill. He also said it was an attempt “funnel money for friends with zero accountability” and a power grab of the Legislature. Gunn stated that Reeves was exceeding his constitutional authority. The Legislature is responsible for spending and not the governor. Reeves stated that the case would be appealed to state Supreme Court. Parker Briden, a spokesperson for Reeves, stated that “one Hinds County judge was not going to decide this.” The Supreme Court will decide whether the spending of millions on pet projects constitutes an appropriation or a condition on an appropriation. The Constitution limits the ability of legislators to give money to special projects. We hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the necessity of this check, which is guaranteed by the Constitution and should not be removed. We believe that the speaker and his team must be held accountable for any attempt to funnel money to favor entities.” Hinds County Chief Chancellor Tiffany Grove filed Monday’s decision. She stated, “… in accordance with the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, and nearly 100 years of case law interpreting the state Constitution. Reeves’ partial veto of $2 million was unconstitutional.” Reeves vetoed $6 million earmarked for the MAGnet community health center to study and address health disparities such as the impact COVID-19 has had on the African American community. This spending was included in a $130million bill that directed Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act money for Mississippi hospitals and health care. Grove stated that the governor’s partial veto power, as granted by the state Constitution, could only be used to veto an entire appropriations bill. It cannot be used to block the spending conditions. To provide funds for COVID-19 relief efforts, the Mississippi Department of Health was authorized $91.9 million by the Legislature. Reeves concluded that Reeves did not have the power to veto some of these health care providers’ appropriations, but could agree to provide funds to other health care providers. She claimed that the governor wanted to veto how the money was spent. However, multiple rulings have made it clear that the governor cannot veto conditions in appropriations bills. Grove’s ruling stated that the bill should be considered passed in its entirety. However, it is unclear if the partial vetoes by health care providers would allow them time to spend the money authorized by the Legislature. Federal law requires that states spend money received under the CARES Act no later than December 31st. It is unclear if the Supreme Court would allow the spending authority to be delayed by appealing to it. Hob Bryan (D-Amory), Senate Public Health Chair, stated that July’s legislation contained a provision that allowed Senatobia’s Tate County hospital to receive funds only if an agreement was reached before Oct 1. to reopen it. Bryan suggested that it might have been more difficult to reach an agreement to reopen Tate County Hospital because Reeves had vetoed the appropriation. Bryan stated that the governor’s veto was a “100% spiteful act”. Gunn and the other House leaders could not immediately be reached for comment. To support this important work, make a regular donation to the House today as part of our Spring Member Drive.