/Latest Reeves vetoes could again expand governor’s power

Latest Reeves vetoes could again expand governor’s power

The Supreme Court landmark 2020 Supreme Court ruling had stated that the governor cannot veto what are called conditions and purposes for appropriations bills. Instead, the court required the governor to veto every section that allocates money to an agency. These purposes and conditions were able to be vetoed by the governor in 2020’s ruling. The 2020 vetoes included $2 million for Tate County’s hospital and $6 million for a program that aimed to reduce health care disparities in the State. It appears that the governor is vetoing appropriations bills’ purposes and conditions as the Supreme Court in 2020 allowed. The bill that the governor partially vetoed last Wednesday — HB1353 — legislatively is not an appropriations law. It is a general bill. The Constitution does not give the governor the power to partially veto general legislation. We believe that these vetoes violate the law and are not allowed. This is something that we will be looking into,” House Speaker Philip Gunn (R-Clinton) said on WJTV’s Mississippi Insight news show. Gunn said “… There is no provision in the law that allows the governor of Mississippi to veto a portion of a general bill. He can veto it all or none of it. “While that may seem more complicated than most people want, there are still differences between the types of bills we have here.” The Constitution defines an appropriations bill. Gunn and others claimed that the bill Reeves partially blocked from being vetoed is not an appropriations bill. House Bill 1353 was voted upon as if it were a general bill. This meant that it required a lower threshold to pass. A appropriations bill, however, contained a partial Reeves veto — $50,000,000 for improvements to University of Mississippi Medical Center. This is the University Medical Center appropriations bill. READ MORE: Gov. Tate Reeves vetoes $50m appropriation to UMMC. However, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court justices will be able to understand or care about the difference between general and appropriations bills. HB1353, to a layperson, looks almost like an appropriations law. It lists all projects in the state that have received legislative appropriations. However, Sen. Hob Bryan (D-Amory) filed and won a lawsuit challenging the partial veto power of the then-Gov in the early 1990s. Kirk Fordice stated that the money was taken from another bill, which was passed earlier and signed into law by Reeves. From a legislative perspective, the money was taken from the Department of Finance and Administration appropriations bill into different accounts. Reeves vetoed the bill that transfers funds already appropriated from DFA to various projects. Bryan stated that they are simply transferring money from one account or one purpose to another. That is not an appropriation. It is a transfer. That is a transfer. The Supreme Court ruled that the lawsuit must be filed by an individual or entity that was affected by the partial veto. The governmental entities, as well as other parties involved in the development and maintenance of LeFleur’s Bluff State Park’s recreational area, would be able to challenge the governor’s $13 million veto. Bryan stated that the worst thing about the 2020 ruling was denying legislators the ability to challenge the vetoes. Bryan stated that it was practical and legal for the Supreme Court, legally and practically to resolve the dispute between legislators, and the executive, over partial vetoes. Bryan stated, “We have a Supreme Court capable of doing anything completely incompetent.”