/Supreme Court sides with Gov Tate Reeves in partial veto fight with speaker

Supreme Court sides with Gov Tate Reeves in partial veto fight with speaker

Reeves spokesperson Bailey Martin stated that “the governor is evidently very pleased that the Court interpreted the Constitution as it was written.” Bailey Martin spoke out about the decision in the lawsuit that pitted Republican leadership against the Republican governor. “This will be an important decision — protecting taxpayer funds — for a long and long time.” Chief Justice Michael Randolph wrote the majority opinion. This was in response to a Supreme Court decision that allowed individual legislators to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality or partial vetoes. They also stated that Reeves’ partial vote, which he had issued earlier in the year, was valid. Justice James Maxwell stated that he did not feel the need to decide directly whether the legislators were able to bring the case because it was decided by a majority that the partial veto was appropriate. Justice Josiah Coleman, however, decided not to decide whether the partial veto was appropriate. He argued instead that the case was improperly before state’s highest court, because the legislators didn’t have the standing to bring it. READ MORE: Gov. Justice Josiah Coleman received Tate Reeves’ campaign. Coleman is now hearing a case against Reeves. After the Legislature passed a bill in the summer that appropriated federal funds to fight the coronavirus, House Speaker Philip Gunn filed the lawsuit. House Pro Tem Jason White also filed the suit. The funds from the Department of Health were to be distributed to different health care providers. Reeves blocked $2 million that was to be used to fund the reopened North Oak Regional Medical Center in Tate County, and $6 million for a program to reduce health disparities in low- and middle-income communities. It is unclear whether the money would have been used even if the Supreme Court overturned partial vetoes at such a late date. Gunn stated that he believed the law supported his position when he filed this lawsuit. Our objective was to defend the rights of citizens to be heard by their elected representatives, and to prevent abuses of power by one person. Today’s ruling weakens the rights and voice of citizens and gives more power to the executive branch. It is regrettable.” Justice Leslie King, an ex-member of the House, joined Justice James Kitchens in arguing that Reeves’ partial vote was improper and that the court majority was wrong to conclude that Gunn or White had no standing. The most striking part of the ruling was that a majority decided that individual legislators couldn’t bring such a suit. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that individual legislators had the right to file similar lawsuits. Although the Constitution grants the governor partial veto power, Supreme Court decisions over the years have drastically limited this authority. The Supreme Court previously ruled that the governor cannot use that authority to veto “purposes and conditions”. King argued that Reeves 2020 veto would have to be complete. King also argued that the governor must veto the entire section of the bill that sends money to the Department of Health. King also argued that the money for the two items he vetoed was a “purpose/condition” of money that has been appropriated to the Department of Health. The majority suggested that the bill’s uniqueness — it appropriated funds for different agencies — may have been a factor in the decision to grant a partial veto. Randolph wrote, “The House Bill 1782 omnibus characteristics dictate today’s outcomes.” “… This omnibus characteristic of House Bill 1782 dictates today’s results.” Randolph stated. The Legislature was actually in session in at most one of the cases. The issue of whether or not the Legislature was in session didn’t appear to have any bearing on the decision. The case was heard shortly after the Nov. 3, general election, where Justice Coleman won strong support and Reeves contributed to his campaign. Coleman was present at the hearing, although he did not rule on the merits. However, he claimed that Gunn and White didn’t have the standing to bring such an action._x000D