It might be a good idea for the Supreme Court justices, before breaking the tie, to collect all facts. This was something they didn’t seem to do during the oral arguments last week. Although the 1890 Mississippi Constitution grants the governor partial power of veto, court rulings over the years have drastically limited that power. Reeves vetoed a bill that provided funds for health care providers. His fellow Republicans, House Speaker Philip Gunn, and House Pro Tem Jason White filed a lawsuit claiming the governor had exceeded his authority. The House leaders were supported by a lower court in Hinds County. Reeves appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. Although the issue surrounding the governor’s partial power of veto could seem tedious or tinny, it could prove to be crucial. Reeves’ victory could increase the governor’s influence on the budgeting process. The Supreme Court has cited three cases as the examples of partial veto power, one in 1890s, another in 1990s and the third in 2000s. These cases were brought up many times during oral argument, but some justices seemed to lack knowledge of them even though they cited them for their arguments. While they will most likely have a better understanding of the cases by the time that they rule, it is possible that their knowledge will be greater. However, oral arguments last week showed that this was not always the case. Justices Josiah Coleman, James Maxwell, and others stated that the key issue in these cases is that the partial vetoes had been issued after the Legislature had adjourned for the calendar year. This meant that legislators didn’t have the option to override them. Reeves’ partial vote to override the law was issued while lawmakers were in session. This allowed them to bypass the courts and override the decision without having to go to court, Maxwell and Coleman stated during oral arguments. Legislators waived the right to file a lawsuit by not trying to override. Maxwell stated that this situation is different because the legislative session was not suspended sine die when the governor performed his partial veto. “You can see that in the other three cases, however, the legislative session had already adjourned. Maxwell stated that the governor had in fact executed his veto and that the Legislature was unable to take the constitutional action (to override it). “This is a very serious distinction.” Andy Taggart (the attorney representing Gunns and White) pointed out that even though a veto has been issued after the session’s end, the Legislature can override it when the next session starts. Taggart didn’t point out that Maxwell and Coleman misrepresented facts. The then-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove attempted to block funding for private prisons by issuing a partial veto of a budget bill for the Department of Corrections. The Legislature was still in session when Musgrove issued his partial veto. The 2002 official opinion of Mike Moore, then-Attorney General, stated that the veto was invalid because it was not constitutional. Because they claimed the Musgrove veto was null, legislators never dealt with it. This is just like how current members didn’t take up the Reeves vote. It is clear that the 2002 partial veto was “void per AG’s opinion”. Later, Musgrove was sued by a private prison firm. Years after Musgrove’s departure, the Supreme Court ruled in favor. Chief Justice Michael Randolph also misrepresented some facts. In all three cases, Randolph stated that the partial vetoes would have an impact on the parties who filed the lawsuits, including the private prisons. In the 1990s, Republican Gov. Kirk Fordice vetoed 27 appropriations bill bills partially, but it was only legislators (including current Sen. Hob Bryan of D-Amory) who filed the lawsuit and not the entities that were impacted by the decision. Randolph also claimed that Fordice partially vetoed bills authorizing the sale bonds to raise money to finance state projects. Two of the bills were revenue or bond bills and 27 were appropriations. This is significant because the state Constitution doesn’t give the governor partial authority to veto bond bills. Although the Constitution gives the governor partial power to veto appropriations bills, it is limited in that the authority is based on 120 years of court decisions. The current court may expand this authority. It certainly has this right. It should, however, do so based upon the facts.