Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Veto-proof state legislatures and opposing party governors in the 2020 elections
Heading into the 2020 elections, there were four states with a governor of one party and a veto-proof state legislature of the opposing party, including three holding legislative elections that year: Kansas, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. There were five states that could have switched to having a veto-proof state legislature and an opposing party governor as a result of the 2020 elections.
State governors may veto bills advanced by the state legislature. With sufficient support—between one-half and two-thirds of sitting legislators, depending on the state—state legislatures may overturn a gubernatorial veto. When one party controls enough seats to overturn a veto without any support from the other party, a legislature can be said to hold a veto-proof majority. The presence of a veto-proof majority strengthens the legislature's hand when it comes to passing bills of which the governor disapproves and can lead to conflict when opposing parties control the legislature and governor's mansion.
On this page, you will find:
- States that could gain a veto-proof legislature and an opposing governor in 2020
- Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
States with a veto-proof legislature and opposing party governor
Kansas
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of Kansas was Laura Kelly (D), who was not up for re-election that year. In Kansas, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Republican Party held more than two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of the legislature, with a 29-11 majority in the state Senate and an 84-41 majority in the state House.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
In 2020, the Democratic Party had the opportunity to break the Republican supermajority in the legislature. In order to do so, the Democratic Party needed to gain at least three seats in the state Senate or at least one seat in the state House. Reaching either target would break the Republican supermajority.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
Kansas holds gubernatorial elections in midterm years, so the Republican Party did not have an opportunity to flip the governorship until 2022. However, the Republican Party had an opportunity to extend its legislative supermajority through the remainder of Gov. Kelly's first term by losing no more than three seats in the state Senate and no more than one seat in the state House.
Kentucky
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of Kentucky was Andy Beshear (D), who was not up for re-election that year. In Kentucky, a majority of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Republican Party held a majority of the seats in both chambers of the legislature, with a 28-10 majority in the state Senate and an 62-38 majority in the state House.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
In 2020, the Democratic Party had the opportunity to break the Republican supermajority in the legislature. In order to do so, the Democratic Party needed to gain at least eight seats in the state Senate or at least 11 seats in the state House. Reaching either target would break the Republican supermajority.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
Kentucky holds gubernatorial elections the year before each presidential election, so the Republican Party did not have an opportunity to flip the governorship until 2023. However, the Republican Party had an opportunity to extend its legislative supermajority for two more years by losing no more than eight seats in the state Senate and no more than 11 seats in the state House.
Massachusetts
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of Massachusetts was Charlie Baker (R), who was not up for re-election that year. In Massachusetts, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Democratic Party held more than two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of the legislature, with a 36-4 majority in the state Senate and a 127-31 majority in the state House.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
Massachusetts holds gubernatorial elections in midterm years, so the Democratic Party did not have an opportunity to flip the governorship until 2022. However, the Democratic Party had an opportunity to extend its legislative supermajority through the remainder of Gov. Baker's second term by losing no more than nine seats in the state Senate and no more than 20 seats in the state House.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
In 2020, the Republican Party had the opportunity to break the Democratic supermajority in the legislature. In order to do so, the Republican Party needed to gain at least nine seats in the state Senate or at least 20 seats in the state House. Reaching either target would break the Democratic supermajority.
States with a potential supermajority conflict
We consider a state to have a potential supermajority if the number of seats across both chambers of the legislature that would need to be picked up by the majority party in order to gain a supermajority is less than or equal to 10% of the total seats in the legislature. Each of the following states had a potential supermajority. Four of those states also had a gubernatorial election that forecasters rated as either a toss-up or as favoring the legislative minority party, while Wisconsin did not have a gubernatorial election in 2020.[2]
Montana
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of Montana was Steve Bullock (D). In Montana, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Republican Party held majorities in both chambers of the legislature, it fell short of the two-thirds supermajority requirement, with a 30-20 majority in the state Senate and a 58-42 majority in the state House.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
In 2020, the Democratic Party had the opportunity to hold the governorship and prevent the Republican Party from gaining a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Democrats needed to lose no more than four seats in the state Senate and no more than nine seats in the state House. Reaching either target would have prevented Republicans from gaining a supermajority.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
In 2020, the Republican Party had the opportunity to take the governorship and win a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Republicans needed to gain at least four seats in the state Senate and at least nine seats in the state House.
New Hampshire
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of New Hampshire was Chris Sununu (R). In New Hampshire, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Democratic Party held majorities in both chambers of the legislature, it fell short of the two-thirds supermajority requirement, with a 14-10 majority in the state Senate and a 231-156 majority in the state House.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
In 2020, the Democratic Party had the opportunity to take the governorship and win a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Democrats needed to gain at least two seats in the state Senate and at least 36 seats in the state House.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
In 2020, the Republican Party had the opportunity to hold the governorship and prevent the Democratic Party from gaining a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Republicans needed to lose no more than two seats in the state Senate and no more than 36 seats in the state House. Reaching either target would have prevented Democrats from gaining a supermajority.
North Carolina
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of North Carolina was Roy Cooper (D). In North Carolina, three-fifths of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Republican Party held majorities in both chambers of the legislature, it fell short of the three-fifths supermajority requirement, with a 29-21 majority in the state Senate and a 65-55 majority in the state House.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
In 2020, the Democratic Party had the opportunity to hold the governorship and prevent the Republican Party from gaining a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Democrats needed to lose no more than one seat in the state Senate and no more than seven seats in the state House. Reaching either target would have prevented Republicans from gaining a supermajority.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
In 2020, the Republican Party had the opportunity to take the governorship and win a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Republicans needed to gain at least one seat in the state Senate and at least seven seats in the state House.
Vermont
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of Vermont was Phil Scott (R). In Vermont, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Democratic Party held a 22-6 supermajority in the state Senate, its 95-43 majority in the state House fell short of the two-thirds supermajority requirement.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
In 2020, the Democratic Party had the opportunity to take the governorship and win a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Democrats needed to lose no more than two seats in the state Senate and gain at least five seats in the state House.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
In 2020, the Republican Party had the opportunity to hold the governorship and prevent the Democratic Party from gaining a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Republicans needed to gain at least two seats in the state Senate and lose no more than five seats in the state House. Reaching either target would have prevented Democrats from gaining a supermajority.
Wisconsin
Existing partisan lean
Heading into the 2020 elections, the governor of Wisconsin was Tony Evers (D). In Wisconsin, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Republican Party held majorities in both chambers of the legislature, it fell short of the two-thirds supermajority requirement, with an 19-14 majority in the state Senate and a 63-36 majority in the state Assembly.[1]
Opportunities for the Democratic Party in 2020
In 2020, the Democratic Party had the opportunity to prevent the Republican Party from gaining a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Democrats needed to lose no more than three seats in the state Senate and no more than three seats in the state Assembly. Reaching either target would have prevented Republicans from gaining a supermajority.
Opportunities for the Republican Party in 2020
In 2020, the Republican Party had the opportunity to win a supermajority in the state legislature. In order to do so, Republicans needed to gain at least three seats in the state Senate and at least three seats in the state Assembly.
Background
Veto overrides
All 50 states give their legislatures the ability to override gubernatorial vetoes. The authority for the override power is always included in a state's constitution, which also specifies how many legislators are needed to override a veto.
- 36 states require a two-thirds vote from both chambers of the legislature.
- Seven states require a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the legislature.[3]
- Six states require a majority vote from both chambers of the legislature.
- Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its legislative chambers.
Ballotpedia has identified six states with rules that change the veto override threshold depending on the type of bill being considered: Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Bills that are subject to special rules are appropriations bills, tax bills, and emergency bills.
Depending on the state, the vote threshold required for a veto override applies to either all members elected to a chamber or to all members present in the chamber. For example, Alabama requires a majority of all elected members to override a veto, so 53 of 105 votes are needed in the state House and 18 votes of 35 votes are needed in the state Senate. Idaho, on the other hand, requires two-thirds of all members present. So, if only 30 of the state Senate's 35 members are present, the threshold to override a veto in that chamber would be 20 votes rather than the 24 that would be required if all elected members were present.
Click [show] to see a state-by-state breakdown of the rules for veto overrides.
Case studies
This section summarizes governing conflicts that took place in recent years as the result of an arrangement featuring a veto-proof legislative majority with an opposing party governor.
Case study: North Carolina
In the 2016 elections, Roy Cooper (D) was elected governor of North Carolina while the Republican Party held a supermajority in the state Legislature. In 2017, ten separate vetoes issued by Gov. Cooper were overriden by the state Legislature.[6] Among the bills that were passed over the governor's veto were House Bill 100, which made superior and district court elections partisan, Senate Bill 257, which decreased the state's income tax rates and limited the ability of the governor to use state funds to sue the legislature, and House Bill 770, which changed the structure of the six-member North Carolina Medical Board so that the governor has the power to appoint only four members rather than all six.
Heading into the 2018 elections, Cooper and the Democratic Party of North Carolina identified breaking the Republican Party supermajority as a priority: "We need to pull together like never before to make sure we get this legislature back...The bottom line here is this crowd in power is working as hard as they can to take this state backward, and they're working fast because they know we’re coming for them."[7]
Legislative leaders such as House Speaker Tim Moore (R) have argued that the supermajority allows them to enact policy priorities without the threat of executive interference. After the legislature successfully overrode the governor's veto of the state budget on June 28, 2017, Moore argued that "The governor chose partisanship over the people of North Carolina when he rejected middle class tax cuts and a fourth consecutive teacher pay raise but the General Assembly has delivered these priorities to North Carolinians without his support."[8]
Case study: Illinois
- See also: State budget conflicts, 2017
On July 6, 2017, the Democratic-controlled Illinois General Assembly overrode Gov. Bruce Rauner’s (R) vetoes of a $36 billion spending plan and a $5 billion tax increase. The override of Rauner’s vetoes marked the end of a 2-year period in which Illinois did not have a budget in place. The state last passed a budget in June 2014, when Pat Quinn (D) served as governor. Rauner defeated Quinn in the 2014 gubernatorial election. Rauner and the General Assembly could not agree on a spending plan in 2015 or 2016, meaning that the state relied on court-ordered spending and stopgap spending measures to fund most services.
The 2017 legislative session ran from January 11 to May 31. Much of the session was focused on budget negotiations between Rauner and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D). They disagreed on several issues including freezing local property tax rates, adding additional restrictions to compensation programs for injured workers, and increasing the state income tax. After failing to reach an agreement, Rauner called the General Assembly into special session from June 21 to June 30, the last day of the 2017 fiscal year. A budget agreement was not reached before June 30, meaning Illinois entered the 2018 fiscal year without a budget.
On July 2, the state House passed a $36 billion spending plan and a $5 billion tax increase. The tax plan raised the personal income tax from 3.75 to 4.95 percent and increased the corporate income tax from 5.25 percent to 7 percent. The budget passed the House by a 72-45 vote. On July 4, the state Senate passed the budget on a 36-18 vote. Shortly after the state Senate passed the budget, it was vetoed by Rauner. The bill was sent back to the Senate the same day and Rauner’s veto was overridden by a 36-19 margin. On July 6, the House overrode the veto by a 71-42 margin. Prior to passing the budget, Illinois faced cuts to state services, including shutdowns of state transportation projects and the state lottery, and a potential downgrade of the credit rating on its bonds to junk status.
The conflict between Rauner and the General Assembly continued after the budget was passed. $8.2 billion in state aid for public schools was included in the budget agreement. However, language was also included that said $6.76 billion of the aid had to be dispersed through a funding formula that calculates state aid for school districts based on the cost of strategies that supporters say are proven to improve student performance. The funding for districts can be increased by elements such as income, property wealth, and English-learning needs.[9][10][11] On May 31, the General Assembly passed SB 1, which contained the necessary funding formula. Gov. Rauner indicated that he would veto the bill because he believed it would benefit Chicago at the expense of other areas of the state.[12]
Rauner issued an amendatory veto on August 1, rewriting SB 1 to remove a $250 million block grant to Chicago Public Schools and changing how the funding formula weights Chicago schools' pension funds.[13] The Illinois Senate met on August 13 and overrode the veto by a 38-19 vote, with all Democrats and Republican Sam McCann voting to override.[14] The Illinois House was scheduled to vote on the override on August 23, but Speaker Madigan cancelled the vote on August 22. He said that progress had been made in negotiations with Rauner and Republicans.[15][16][17]
On August 24, the four leaders in the General Assembly— Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton (D), Senate Minority Leader Bill Brady (R), and House Minority Leader Jim Durkin (R)— announced that they had reached a compromise agreement on SB 1. According to Politico, the agreement kept the funding formula from SB 1 and included $75 million in subsidies for private school education.[18]
On August 28, the Illinois House rejected the agreement in a 46-61 vote.[19] The chamber next voted on an override of SB 1. After the override vote received just 63 of the 71 votes it needed to pass, the chamber took up the compromise bill again and passed it 73-34.[20] On August 29, the Illinois Senate passed the compromise bill by a 38-13 vote. Gov. Rauner said he would sign the bill.[21]
Following the 2016 elections, Illinois was one of 19 states under divided government. Democrats had a 67-51 majority in the House and a 37-22 majority in the Senate. Three fifths of members in both chambers must vote to override a veto, which is 71 of the 118 members in the Illinois House of Representatives and 36 of the 59 members in the Illinois State Senate.
Case study: Massachusetts
In the 2014 elections, Charlie Baker (R) was elected governor of Massachusetts while the Democratic Party held a supermajority in the state Legislature. The Democratic supermajority has allowed the state Legislature to overturn Baker's vetoes, giving the legislative branch an upper hand in policy disputes.
Among the bills passed by the legislature, vetoed by Baker, and subsequently enacted over Baker's veto was H.4491, which required that health insurance companies cover the cost of long-term antibiotic treatments for Lyme disease patients in cases where the treatment is deemed medically necessary. Baker's July 28, 2016, veto of the bill was overturned three days later.[22][23] H.58, which increased the pay rates for the state's executive officers (including the governor), leadership figures in the state legislature, and certain judicial officers, was passed over Baker's veto on February 2, 2017.[24][25] The state's fiscal year 2018 budget was the subject of a series of line-item vetoes by Baker which eliminated nearly $320 million of funding. The state House voted to overturn each of Baker's vetoes, but the state Senate voted against overturning several vetoes, including a veto of $209 million in appropriations to MassHealth.[26][27]
The Democratic supermajority in the Massachusetts state legislature was targeted by the Republican State Leadership Committee during the 2016 election cycle. In July 2015, the committee announced that Massachusetts would be one of the states it placed particular emphasis on in its 2016 campaign efforts.
Case study: Maryland
In the 2014 elections, Larry Hogan (R) was elected governor of Maryland while the Democratic Party held a supermajority in the state Legislature. Hogan and the legislature have clashed on numerous occasions since he took office, and the Democratic supermajority has allowed the legislature to overturn several of Hogan's vetoes.
Among the vetoes overturned by the legislature were:
- House Bill 1013, which required the state Department of Transportation to score its proposed projects using factors including safety and cost-effectiveness. Its proponents argued that it would make the prioritization process for public works more transparent, while opponents argued that it would limit local control and would favor more populous counties. The state legislature successfully overturned Hogan's veto.[28][29]
- HB 0001, which required employers with more than 15 employees to provide their employees with earned sick leave at their standard wage and required all other employers to provide their employees with unpaid sick leave.[30][31]
- HB1783, which created a panel filled by appointment of the governor and legislative leadership which would prioritize the construction and renovation of schools rather than the existing Board of Public Works—comprised of the governor, treasurer, and comptroller. Hogan's veto, which was supported by Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), was overturned by the legislature.[32][33]
Republicans were seeking to break the Democratic veto-proof majority in the 2018 legislative elections. A May 2017 report in The Washington Post indicated that Senate Republicans had targeted five Democratic incumbents which they had identified as vulnerable with the stated goal of breaking the veto-proof majority.[34] In a January 2018 interview, GOPAC Chairman David Avella identified breaking the Democratic veto-proof majority, which has been in place since 1922, as an achievable goal: "Given the dynamics in the state now and the fact that Republicans have majorities in nearly two-thirds of state legislatures, we can start playing offense in areas where we haven't played before."[35]
See also
- Election results, 2020: State legislative veto-proof majorities
- State legislative elections, 2020
- Gubernatorial elections, 2020
- Conflicts between Gov. Roy Cooper and the North Carolina General Assembly
- Veto overrides in state legislatures
- State government trifectas
- Supermajority
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 This analysis does not take currently vacant seats or seats held by a third party or independent legislator into account. It also does not account for situations where members of one party caucus with the other party.
- ↑ This calculation takes into account ratings from the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections with Nathan Gonzales, and Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedNE - ↑ Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its two legislative chambers, which is 40 of 60 legislators.
- ↑ California State Capitol Museum, "Life Cycle of a Bill," accessed July 21, 2017
- ↑ North Carolina Legislative Library, "North Carolina Veto History and Statistics, 1997-2018," accessed January 9, 2018
- ↑ Citizen Times, "Cooper, fired up Dems set sights on busting GOP super-majority," October 8, 2017
- ↑ Fox 8, "Lawmakers override Gov. Cooper’s budget veto," January 9, 2018
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedEDU - ↑ NPR Illinois, "Education Desk: Evidence-Based School Funding Model Explained," September 26, 2016
- ↑ WTTW, "Education Funding in Illinois: How the Evidence-Based Model Works," September 21, 2016
- ↑ U.S. News and World Report, "Rauner Aide: Democrats' School Funding Plan a CPS 'Bailout'," May 17, 2017
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner vetoes education funding plan, Emanuel accuses him of 'fuzzy math'," August 1, 2017
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Senate overrides Rauner school funding veto, but House hurdle remains," August 13, 2017
- ↑ The Chicago Sun-Times, "Speaker Madigan calls legislators to work — on Governor’s Day," August 9, 2017
- ↑ wglt.org, "Illinois House To Vote Next Week On School Funding Override," August 16, 2017
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Madigan calls off Wednesday session in Springfield; no override vote of Rauner for now," August 23, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "SCHOOL funding WINNERS and LOSERS — RAUNER staffing TURMOIL — Saving ABE in CHICAGO," August 25, 2017
- ↑ capitolfax.com, "Education funding reform bill gets just 46 votes," August 28, 2017
- ↑ capitolfax.com, "On second try, education funding reform passes with 73 votes," August 28, 2017
- ↑ capitolfax.com, "React rolls in to passage of education funding reform," August 29, 2017
- ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Bill H.4491," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ Wicked Local Scituate, "Mass. Legislature overrides Gov. Baker’s veto of Lyme disease coverage," August 2, 2016
- ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Bill H.58," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ Boston.com, "Lawmakers vote to override Charlie Baker’s veto of pay raises," February 2, 2017
- ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "FY 2018 Final Budget," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, "The State Budget for FY 2018 Including Veto Overrides," December 6, 2017
- ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB1013," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ WTOP, "Md. House of Delegates overrides 2 Hogan vetoes," April 7, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Maryland flexes progressive Democratic muscles to override two Hogan vetoes," January 12, 2018
- ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB0001," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB1783," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ WBAL TV 11, "General Assembly overrides Hogan's veto of school construction overhaul bill," April 5, 2018
- ↑ The Washington Post, "How Md. Republicans plan to break the state Senate’s supermajority in 2018," May 7, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Republican outside groups take a rare interest in deep-blue Maryland," January 12, 2018
