Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Veto overrides in state legislatures
A veto is an act of disapproval by an executive that prohibits a bill passed by a legislature from becoming law. Veto overrides occur when a legislature votes to reverse a veto issued by an executive such as a governor or the president.
If one party has a majority in a state legislature that is large enough to override a gubernatorial veto without any votes from members of the minority party, it is called a veto-proof majority or, sometimes, a supermajority.
The vote margin required to override a veto varies by state:
- Thirty-six states require a two-thirds vote.
- Seven states require a three-fifths vote.[1]
- Six states require a majority vote.
- Alaska requires a two-thirds vote from its combined legislative chambers.
After the November 2024 elections, there were 28 state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in both chambers. Twenty of these state legislatures were controlled by Republicans and eight were controlled by Democrats. In two states — Kansas and Kentucky — one party had a veto-proof majority in the legislature and the other party held the governor's office.
Ballotpedia has identified 25 states where legislatures can override vetoes that occur after the adjournment of the regular legislative session during which the bill passed.
Ballotpedia has also identified conflicts between governors and state legislatures related to veto overrides. Read more here.
States with veto-proof majorities
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. After the 2024 elections, there were veto-proof majorities in 28 state legislatures—eight Democratic and 20 Republican.
Veto-proof majorities are most important when the governor belongs to the opposite party as the veto-proof legislature. There were two states with a veto-proof legislative majority and an opposing party governor after the 2024 elections—Kansas and Kentucky. In those states, Republican legislative majorities could override the vetoes of the states' Democratic governors.
The map below shows the 27 states with veto-proof majorities[2].
Click [show] to see a state-by-state breakdown of which chambers have veto-proof majorities.
| Veto-proof majorities in state legislatures | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Votes for veto-proof House | Votes for veto-proof Senate | Veto-proof legislature | Party of governor |
| Alabama | 53 | 18 | R | R |
| Alaska[3] | N/A | N/A | No | R |
| Arizona | 40 | 20 | No | D |
| Arkansas | 51 | 18 | R | R |
| California | 54 | 27 | D | D |
| Colorado | 44 | 24 | No | D |
| Connecticut | 101 | 24 | D | D |
| Delaware | 25 | 13 | D | D |
| Florida | 80 | 27 | R | R |
| Georgia | 120 | 38 | No | R |
| Hawaii | 34 | 17 | D | D |
| Idaho | 47 | 24 | R | R |
| Illinois | 71 | 36 | D | D |
| Indiana | 51 | 26 | R | R |
| Iowa | 67 | 34 | R | R |
| Kansas | 84 | 27 | R | D |
| Kentucky | 51 | 20 | R | D |
| Louisiana | 70 | 26 | R | R |
| Maine | 101 | 24 | No | D |
| Maryland | 85 | 29 | D | D |
| Massachusetts | 107 | 27 | D | D |
| Michigan | 74 | 26 | No | D |
| Minnesota | 90 | 45 | No | D |
| Mississippi | 82 | 35 | No | R |
| Missouri | 109 | 23 | R | R |
| Montana | 67 | 34 | No | R |
| Nebraska | N/A | 30 | R | R |
| Nevada | 28 | 14 | No | R |
| New Hampshire | 267 | 16 | No | R |
| New Jersey | 54 | 27 | No | D |
| New Mexico | 47 | 28 | No | D |
| New York | 100 | 42 | No | D |
| North Carolina | 72 | 30 | No | D |
| North Dakota | 63 | 32 | R | R |
| Ohio | 60 | 20 | R | R |
| Oklahoma | 68 | 32 | R | R |
| Oregon | 40 | 20 | No | D |
| Pennsylvania | 136 | 34 | No | D |
| Rhode Island | 45 | 23 | D | D |
| South Carolina | 83 | 31 | R | R |
| South Dakota | 47 | 24 | R | R |
| Tennessee | 50 | 17 | R | R |
| Texas | 100 | 21 | No | R |
| Utah | 50 | 20 | R | R |
| Vermont | 100 | 20 | No | R |
| Virginia | 67 | 27 | No | R |
| Washington | 66 | 33 | No | D |
| West Virginia | 51 | 18 | R | R |
| Wisconsin | 66 | 22 | No | D |
| Wyoming | 42 | 21 | R | R |
Veto override rules in state legislatures
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.[1]
- 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.
Post-adjournment vetoes
Congress cannot override a presidential veto if the veto occurs after adjournment and the president had less than 10 days to consider the bill. This process is described in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Some states, such as Idaho, have similar rules that prevent legislatures from acting on gubernatorial vetoes that occur post-adjournment.[6] Other states have rules that allow state legislatures to override vetoes in special sessions or during the legislature's next regular session.
This chart shows 25 states that Ballotpedia has identified as having rules that may allow legislatures to override post-adjournment vetoes. The list is not exhaustive.
History of veto overrides
The concept of the veto goes back to antiquity. Veto (Latin for "I forbid") was first used in the Roman Republic, when tribunes, representatives of the common people, were able to nullify actions taken by consuls, who acted as executives with the Roman Republican system. It was also used in pre-1700 England, where the monarch had the power to veto laws passed by Parliament. This power was absolute, as Parliament could not override the monarch's veto. The last veto of a law passed by Parliament was in 1707 when Queen Anne vetoed a bill affecting Scottish militias.
In the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, the British government could veto laws passed by colonial assemblies. Colonial governors and the English monarch could both exercise the veto power. Their vetoes were absolute and could not be overridden by colonial assemblies. Between 1696 and 1765, nearly 400 laws passed by colonial assemblies were vetoed. The Declaration of Independence references this in the line, "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
After the colonies declared independence in 1776, state assemblies wanted to move away from the vetoes in the British governance model that had stymied many of their proposals. As such, just three included an executive veto in their constitutions: Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina. The Massachusetts and New York constitutions allowed their state legislatures to override gubernatorial vetoes by a two-thirds vote.
Due to the influence of these state constitutions, veto overrides were debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, where state delegates came together to write the U.S. Constitution. One issue was whether to adopt an absolute veto or give Congress the power to override them. Alexander Hamilton of New York and James Wilson of Virginia, both proponents of a strong executive branch, unsuccessfully argued that the president should have an absolute veto. Both delegates favored a strong executive and, according to Wilson, the absolute veto would rarely have to be used because its "silent operation would therefore preserve harmony and prevent mischief." They lost out to the majority of delegates who were concerned about giving the executive too much power and wanted a strong legislative branch.
Delegates also debated the vote that would be required to override a veto. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina argued for a two-thirds threshold so that the president and a small number of allied senators could not band together to block overrides. Hamilton argued for a three-fourths threshold, arguing that the two-thirds threshold had been ineffective in the New York Legislature. Again, Hamilton's position did not prevail, and the two-thirds threshold was adopted. Thirty-six states adopted the same two-thirds threshold for veto overrides in their constitutions.[21]
All 50 state legislatures and Congress have the ability to override executive vetoes. According to political scientist Robert Spitzer, "The right of Congress to have a final chance at vetoed bills was essential to the checks and balances system [the founders] created."[22] At the state legislative level, the veto override power works the same way.
Statewide comparison
Between 2010 and 2020, governors issued 11,180 complete or partial/line-item vetoes, of which legislatures overrode 579 (5.2%). The map below shows each state based on the percentage of vetoes overridden between 2010 and 2020.
The table below shows the raw totals of vetoes and overrides by state between 2010 and 2020.
The map below shows the percentage of all gubernatorial vetoes that were overridden between 2010 and 2021.
Click on a state below to view its veto override history from 2010 to 2020.
| Year | Bills enacted | Bills vetoed | Vetoes overridden | Percentage overridden | Legislative control | Gubernatorial control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 265 | 0 | 0 | - |  Republican |
Republican |
| 2019 | 538 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2018 | 796 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2017 | 467 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2016 | 485 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2015 | 534 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2014 | 457 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2013 | 443 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2012 | 722 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2011 | 709 | 0 | 0 | - | Republican |
Republican |
| 2010 | 782 | 10 | 4 | 40% |  Democratic |
Republican |
Noteworthy veto overrides
The veto override power can play a role in conflicts between state legislatures and governors. Conflict can occur when legislatures vote to override gubernatorial vetoes or in court cases related to vetoes and the override power. Although it has the potential to create conflict, the veto override power is rarely used. According to political scientists Peverill Squire and Gary Moncrief in 2010, only about five percent of vetoes are overridden.[23]
Ballotpedia tracks notable examples of conflict involving veto overrides. Ballotpedia began tracking executive conflict in 2017, so the examples included occurred in 2017 or later.
2025
Alaska
Coalition-controlled state legislature overrides Gov. Mike Dunleavy's (R) veto of education bill
On May 20, 2025, lawmakers in the coalition-controlled Alaska Legislature overrode Gov. Mike Dunleavy's veto of an education bill raising the base student allocation (BSA) by $700.[24]
In his veto message, Dunleavy said:
| “ | The bill, although it contains funding for schools and we all agree that our schools need some funding, it did not contain the other half, as we say, of the coin, and that was policies. ... We couldn't get agreement on those policies, so in essence, in the end it just became a spending bill that we believe we could have done a lot better with.[25][26] | ” |
Senate Majority Leader Catherine A. Giessel (R) said after the override vote, "Public service also requires humility, and I think that’s what many legislators began to recognize, the humility to listen to the people. The people of Alaska have been asking for education funding for their kids. People heard that and responded today with the courage to do the right thing."[27]
The Legislature overrode the veto 46-14 in a joint session, with a 17-3 vote among the Senate and a 29-11 vote among the House.[27]
Kansas
Republican-controlled state legislature overrides Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) vetoes of 14 bills
The table below shows the votes to override Kelly's vetoes broken down by chamber. At the time of the overrides, Republicans held 88 seats in the House, and Democrats held 37. In the Senate, Republicans held 31 seats, and Democrats held nine. In Kansas, a two-thirds vote in both chambers is required to override a veto.
| Veto override votes in the Kansas Legislature 2025 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Bill | House | Senate | Date | Bill | House | Senate | Date | Bill | House | Senate | ||
| March 25, 2025 | Senate Bill 4 | 84-41 | 30-10 | April 10, 2025 | Senate Bill 5 | 87-37 | 31-9 | April 10, 2025 | Senate Bill 14 | 85-39 | 31-9 | ||
| April 10, 2025 | Senate Bill 29 | 86-38 | 31-9 | February 18, 2025 | Senate Bill 63 | 85-34 | 31-9 | April 11, 2025 | Senate Bill 125 (line-item vetoes)[28] | 88-34 | 30-10 | ||
| April 10, 2025 | Senate Bill 269 | 87-37 | 30-10 | April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2033 | 87-38 | 32-8 | April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2062 | 87-38 | 31-9 | ||
| April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2217 | 87-38 | 30-10 | April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2240 | 88-37 | 31-9 | April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2284 | 88-37 | 30-10 | ||
| April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2291 | 88-37 | 30-10 | April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2311 | 87-38 | 31-9 | April 10, 2025 | House Bill 2382 | 84-41 | 31-9 | ||
In Kansas' 2025 regular legislative session, the state legislature overrode 14 full vetoes and 19 line-item vetoes made by Gov. Laura Kelly (D). The line-item vetoes were in the state's budget bill, SB 125.
In her veto statement for SB 269, a bill which, according to its title, "[provided] that future income tax and privilege tax rate decreases be contingent on exceeding revenue estimates and retaining a certain amount in the budget stabilization fund," Kelly wrote:[29]
| “ |
I have proposed and supported tax cuts when they are implemented responsibly and benefit the people of Kansas, especially those who need it most. This bill ignores Kansas families at a time of rising costs and inflation in favor of hundreds of millions of dollars in giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. Make no mistake, should this bill become law, it will put the state back on the path toward the failed Brownback tax experiment: the four-day school weeks, the budget cuts, and the crumbling roads and bridges that came with it.[26] |
” |
In her veto statement for HB 2062, which in part, according to its title, "[provided] for child support orders for unborn children from the date of conception" and "[provided] for an income tax exemption for unborn and stillborn children," Kelly wrote:[29]
| “ |
[T]his bill is yet another attempt by special interest groups and extremist lawmakers to ignore the will of Kansans and insert themselves into the lives of those making private medical decisions. It is a place where this Legislature has become all too comfortable — particularly for those who espouse freedom from government overreach. The motives behind this bill are clear. Instead of helping pregnant women and families, the Legislature chose to pass a bill that connects the issue to a woman's constitutional rights. This bill is a dismissal of the will of the majority of Kansans who voted overwhelmingly in 2022 to keep politicians out of the private medical decisions made between a woman and her doctor.[26] |
” |
After the Senate overrode the vetoes, Sen. Majority Leader Ty Masterson (R) wrote:[30]
| “ |
In November, Kansans expanded our Republican supermajority with a clear mandate to act and today, we delivered for the people. Republicans stood united in support of tax relief, defending constitutional rights, protecting our children from transgender ideology, securing our elections, reducing regulatory burdens on small businesses, supporting pregnant women, and scaling back the size and scope of government. By standing strong and united, Republicans demonstrated our commitment to building a stronger, freer, more prosperous Kansas for all. [26] |
” |
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of bill changing the deadline for returning mail-in ballots
On March 25, 2025, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Kansas legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of Senate Bill 4, a bill changing the deadline for the return of mail-in ballots.[31]
The bill required all mail-in ballots to be received at the office of the county election officer or any polling place by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. Previously, ballots would be counted so long as they were postmarked by Election Day and received by the following Friday.[31]
Republican House leadership released the following statement: "Governor Kelly's misguided veto was a slight to voter confidence, but that was corrected with today's override of Senate Bill 4. Kansas voters—whether in rural communities or urban centers—deserve an election system that is transparent, fair, and trusted. This override reflects House Republicans’ commitment to ensuring all Kansans’ votes will be counted."[32]
In her veto statement, Kelly wrote:[33]
| “ |
The three-day grace period for mail ballots was a bipartisan solution approved by the Legislature in 2017 to address delays in processing of mail by the United States Postal Service, particularly in rural areas. The goal was to ensure that all Kansans had their votes counted, no matter where they lived. Not only will removing the three-day grace period for mail ballots disenfranchise thousands of Kansas voters, but it also shows a lack of understanding of our elections in Kansas. Implementing this will create confusion among county election officials, who will have to update policies and procedures on handling of mail ballots in a higher turnout election year. [26] |
” |
In the House, the override vote was 84-41 with four Republicans voting against the override. In the Senate, the override vote was 30-10 with Sen. Brenda Dietrich (R) voting against the override.[31]
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of bill prohibiting gender transition treatments for minors
On February 18, 2025, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Kansas legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of a bill prohibiting gender transition treatments for minors.[34]
The bill prohibits healthcare providers from providing gender transition treatments in the form of hormone therapies, puberty blockers, or surgery to children whose gender identity is inconsistent with their sex and creates legal and professional consequences for healthcare providers who provide such treatment. Additionally, it prohibits recipients of state funds from providing a referral to a different healthcare provider.[34]
Senate President Ty Masterson said, "Today, we sign the Help Not Harm Act in honor of the children who Governor Kelly failed to protect with her repeated vetoes of this sensible legislation. With help from Kansas voters last fall, we were able to override her veto and protect Kansas children from these harmful, irreversible, and experimental gender-reassignment surgeries and medicines."[35]
Following the veto, Kelly said, "It is unfortunate that the first bill the Legislature sent me this session is focused on putting politicians between Kansans and their private medical decisions instead of prioritizing solutions to issues like rising prices and the cost of groceries, which would benefit everyone. This divisive bill will undoubtedly have ripple effects that harm Kansas families, our businesses, and our economy and intensify our workforce shortage issue."[36]
In the House, the override vote was 85-34 with Rep. Mark Schreiber (R) voting against the override. In the Senate, the override vote was 31-9 along party lines.[34]
Kentucky
Republican-controlled general assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) vetoes of 29 bills
On March 27, 2025, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode 24 full vetoes and five line-item vetoes made by Gov. Andy Beshear (D).
During the veto period, Beshear stated, "I will always put our Kentucky families first. ... The bills that received my veto are bills that harm Kentucky workers or violate our constitution and longstanding laws."[37] He also stated, "I feel like we started the session, lifting people up, and by the end of the session, the General Assembly was kicking them while they were down. ... We’ve got to govern in a way that has more humanity and more empathy. In order to reach our full potential and to build Our New Kentucky Home, we have to be welcoming to people from different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. We have to lend that helping hand to other people, and certainly not make it harder for people that are already marginalized."[38]
After the General Assembly overrode the vetoes, Sen. Majority Leader Max Wise (R) said:[39]
| “ |
In overriding these vetoes, the legislature continues its strong precedent of upholding Kentucky’s values—values the executive branch increasingly contradicts. What’s most concerning in the Governor’s veto messages is the pattern of laying the groundwork to later ignore his constitutional duty to faithfully execute laws duly enacted by the legislature. As we near the end of the 2025 Session and head into the interim, when many of these new laws will take effect, Kentuckians and the press should remain alert. This administration’s selective enforcement and contradictory positions have become as routine as our overriding of his misguided and misleading vetoes. Kentucky deserves an executive branch that respects its constitutional responsibilities above the Governor’s political ambitions. [26] |
” |
The table below shows the votes to override Beshear's vetoes broken down by chamber. At the time of the overrides, Republicans held 80 seats in the House, and Republicans held 20. In the Senate, Republicans held 31 seats, and Democrats held seven. In Kentucky, a simple majority in both chambers is required to override a veto.
| Veto override votes in the Kentucky General Assembly March 27, 2025 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bill | House | Senate | Bill | House | Senate | Bill | House | Senate | ||
| House Bill 2 | 80-19 | 31-6 | House Bill 424 | 80-20 | 29-9 | Senate Bill 28 | 81-10 | 32-6 | ||
| House Bill 4 | 79-19 | 32-6 | House Bill 495 | 78-20 | 31-6 | Senate Bill 65 | 75-18 | 32-6 | ||
| House Bill 6 | 80-20 | 31-7 | House Bill 546 (line-item veto) | 77-16 | 32-6 | Senate Bill 84 | 74-18 | 32-6 | ||
| House Bill 90 | 77-20 | 31-7 | House Bill 552 | 85-10 | 33-4 | Senate Bill 89 | 66-23 | 29-8 | ||
| House Bill 136 | 80-17 | 32-6 | House Bill 566 (line-item veto) | 72-22 | 30-6 | Senate Bill 183 | 72-17 | 31-7 | ||
| House Bill 216 | 79-15 | 32-6 | House Bill 684 | 84-15 | 30-6 | Senate Bill 207 | 78-16 | 31-7 | ||
| House Bill 240 | 93-3 | 36-2 | House Bill 694 | 67-27 | 29-8 | Senate Bill 245 | 77-15 | 32-6 | ||
| House Bill 346 | 78-19 | 32-6 | House Bill 695 | 80-20 | 29-7 | House Joint Resolution 30 (line-item veto) | 82-18 | 29-7 | ||
| House Bill 398 | 78-22 | 29-9 | Senate Bill 19 | 74-17 | 29-8 | House Joint Resolution 46 (line-item veto) | 80-20 | 29-4 | ||
| House Bill 399 | 69-28 | 31-7 | Senate Bill 25 (line-item veto) | 72-19 | 31-6 | |||||
Florida
Florida lawmakers override Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R) legislative funding vetoes
On January 27, 2025, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Florida legislature overrode Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R) June 2024 line-item vetoes of specific appropriations 2802 and 2803 in the state's budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.[31][40]
The veto overrides reinstated nearly $57 million in funding to the House and Senate for legislative support services such as research and technology systems.[41][42]
Speaker of the House Daniel Perez (R) said, "This veto was at best a misunderstanding of the importance of the appropriation, or, at worst, an attempt to threaten the independence of our separate branch of government."[41]
In his veto message for the budget bill, DeSantis wrote, "I am today issuing $949.6 million in line-item vetoes that will result in a budget reserve in excess of $17 billion. ... Governments should strive to do more with less. It can be done, and my action today cements that lesson for the nation."[43]
In the House, the override votes were 111-0 for both appropriations. In the Senate, the votes were 35-1 and 36-1 for appropriations 2802 and 2803, respectively, with Sen. Blaise Ingoglia (R) voting against the overrides. [31]
North Carolina
Republican-controlled North Carolina Legislature overrides eight of Gov. Josh Stein's (D) 14 vetoes
In North Carolina's 2025 regular legislative session, the Republican-controlled state legislature overrode eight vetoes made by Gov. Josh Stein (D), with the votes of some House Democrats.[44] At the time of the veto overrides, Republicans held 30-20 supermajority in the state State and were one seat short of a supermajority in the state House, with a 71-49 majority. In North Carolina, a three-fifths vote in both chambers is required to override a veto.
Ahead of the veto override votes, Gov. Stein said:[45]
| “ |
There’s one bill that matters to every North Carolinian, and that is the budget bill. They could do nothing but pass the budget and set the state up for continued success. I urge the General Assembly to focus on what matters.[26] |
” |
Senate President pro tempore Phil Berger (R) said, "By vetoing these commonsense bills, Gov. Stein confirms that he is out of touch with the people of North Carolina. He tolerates criminal illegal aliens roaming our streets, divisive ‘DEI’ concepts in our schools, and government infringement on our Second Amendment rights. I look forward to leading Senate Republicans in overriding these harmful vetoes and putting North Carolina families first."[46]
The New York Times' Eduardo Medina wrote, "Among the bills that became law over the governor’s veto were a measure allowing employees at private schools to carry concealed weapons, letting parents pull their children out of lessons they think violate their religious beliefs, and a broad energy bill eliminating efforts to combat climate change."[44] The legislature also overrode a veto of a bill related to gender in medicine and education.[44]
Oklahoma
Republican-controlled Oklahoma Legislature overrides 47 of Gov. Kevin Stitt's (R) 68 vetoes
In Oklahoma's 2025 regular legislative session, the Republican-controlled state legislature overrode 47 vetoes made by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R), a record number of veto overrides in the state.[47] At the time of the veto overrides, Republicans held 40-8 and 80-18 majorities in the Senate and House, respectively. In Oklahoma, a two-thirds vote in both chambers is required to override a veto.
In a video posted prior to the veto overrides, Stitt said:[48]
| “ |
This is stuff that I know is bad for Oklahoma, bad for taxpayers, and you've got the Senate and the House and special interest groups that are trying to override my vetoes. I've vetoed 68 bills absolutely that were going to put more regulations on businesses and cause higher taxes for Oklahomans.[26] |
” |
Stitt also told Oklahoma voters to be aware of how their legislators voted on the overrides, saying, "Just because people have an "R" by their name when they're running, you've got to know how they are voting. And today is the telltale sign. Do they believe in freedoms and limited government? Or, do they believe in bigger government and whatever the lobbyist crowd wants around this building?"[48]
Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt (D) said, "It's a strange thing in our democracy that he gets full veto power there. When it's valuable policy that's well-vetted and thought through, it makes sense for us to override."[49] In a motion to override a veto on HB 2459, a bill regarding fire safety in mobile food vehicles, Rep. Scott Fetgatter (R) said, "Evidently, since the governor has called for all of us to be primaried that override his vetoes today, and his staff can't seem to read a bill correctly and they vetoed my bill, I make a motion to override the veto."[50]
Some of the other veto overrides were of bills that required insurance companies to cover more types of diagnostic mammograms (HB 1389), expanded penalties for DUI convictions (SB 54), and removed federal funding requirements for the Office of Liaison for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons, allowing for state funding of the office (HB 1137).[47][51]
Wyoming
Wyoming lawmakers override Gov. Mark Gordon's (R) veto of bill requiring ultrasound before medication abortion
On March 5, 2025, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled Wyoming legislature overrode Gov. Mark Gordon's (R) veto of a bill requiring individuals to undergo an ultrasound before obtaining a medication abortion. The bill mandated that anyone seeking a chemical abortion receive an ultrasound and documentation confirming the pregnancy and gestational age of the fetus at least 48 hours before acquiring the medication.[31]
In his veto message, Gordon wrote:[52]
| “ | If this Act were to become law, it creates the prospect of an unnecessary, intimate, and invasive procedure (transvaginal ultrasound) which subjects women to an uncomfortable and potentially traumatic experience in what may already be a very overwhelming situation. I question whether this invasive ultrasound is absolutely necessary, fully informative, or can even be considered a reasonable requirement for this procedure regardless of the circumstances resulting in the pregnancy. ...
|
” |
According to Cowboy State Daily's Leo Wolfson, "[S]upporters of the bill have argued that an ultrasound should be required to determine whether or not the amount of abortion chemical is being correctly administered based on the size of the fetus in the womb."[53]
Sen. Laura Taliaferro Pearson (R), who supported the bill, said, "This bill is about protecting not only the mother, but (also) the child. Many can say this is intrusive, but the facts are that these abortion drugs are not safe after a certain gestational period of the baby. That’s the reason for the vaginal ultrasound."[53]
In the House, the override vote was 45-16 with 10 Republicans voting against the override. In the Senate, the override vote was 22-9 with seven Republicans voting against the override.[31][54]
2024
Kansas
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly (D) veto on a bill regarding abortion
On April 29, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of House Bill 2749 which requires "medical care facilities and providers to report the reasons for each abortion performed at such facility or by such provider to the secretary of health and environment."[55]
House leadership said:
| “ | By overriding the governor’s veto of this bill, voluntary and anonymous abortion data will now be made available to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment so they can have up-to-date and relevant information. The governor’s unreasonable fear of this data collection is nothing but a roadblock to helping serve these vulnerable women better.[56][26] | ” |
In her veto statement, Kelly said:
| “ | Kansans spoke loud and clear in August 2022. Voters do not want politicians getting between doctors and their patient by interfering in private medical decisions. House Bill 2749 is invasive and unnecessary. There is no valid medical reason to force a woman to disclose to the legislature if they have been a victim of abuse, rape, or incest prior to obtaining an abortion. There is also no valid reason to force a woman to disclose to the legislature why she is seeking an abortion.[57][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 84-41, with two Republicans voting with Democrats and one Democrat voting with Republicans. In the Senate, the override vote was 27-10, with three not voting.[58]
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly (D) veto on a bill regarding compliance and implementation costs
On April 29, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of House Bill 2648 which requires "the director of the budget to independently determine costs of compliance and implementation for all proposed rules and regulations and authorizing the director of the budget to disapprove proposed rules and regulations."[59]
House leadership said:
| “ | By overriding the governor’s veto of this bill, voluntary and anonymous abortion data will now be made available to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment so they can have up-to-date and relevant information. The governor’s unreasonable fear of this data collection is nothing but a roadblock to helping serve these vulnerable women better.[60][26] | ” |
In her veto statement, Kelly said:
| “ | House Bill 2648 would insert bureaucratic red tape intended to legislatively interfere with the timely implementation of necessary and important rules and regulations. Many of these regulations are for the protection and safety of Kansans. Kansans voted no to giving the legislature veto power over rules and regulations in the November 2022 election. This is yet again another attempt by the legislature to undermine the will of the voters.[61][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 87-38, with two Democrats voting with Republicans. In the Senate, the override vote was 27-12, with two Republicans voting with Democrats and one Democrat not voting.[62]
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly (D) veto on a bill regarding the crime of coercion to obtain an abortion
On April 29, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of Sub Bill for House Bill 2436 which creates "the crime of coercion to obtain an abortion and providing enhanced criminal penalties for offenses committed with the intent to coerce a woman to obtain an abortion."[63]
House leadership said:
| “ | The governor’s veto message falsely equates “concerned conversations” to the strict requirements of what defines coercion in the bill. Because coercing a woman to have an abortion when that is not her choice is always wrong, my colleagues and I are proud to stand together against abuses such as sex trafficking and sexual abuse that accompany abortion coercion and override Laura Kelly’s negligent veto.[64][26] | ” |
In her veto statement, Kelly said:
| “ | I am concerned with the vague language in this bill and its potential to intrude upon private, often difficult, conversations between a person and their family, friends, and health care providers. This overly broad language risks criminalizing Kansans who are being confided in by their loved ones or simply sharing their expertise as a health care provider.[65][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 85-40, with one Democrat voting with Republicans and one Republican voting with Democrats. In the Senate, the override vote was 28-10, with two not voting.[66]
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly (D) veto on a bill regarding an adoption savings account and tax credits
On April 29, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of House Bill 2465 which allows individuals to establish adoption savings accounts with certain financial institutions, provides tax credits for contributions to organizations operating pregnancy centers or residential maternity facilities, and creates a sales tax exemption for purchases made by pregnancy centers or residential maternity facilities.[67]
House leadership said:
| “ | By overriding Governor Kelly’s veto, Kansas women and families will now have access to tax credits for adoption services and the creation of adoption savings accounts- resources that will go a long way toward opening the possibility of adoption for many. Additionally, the tax credits in this bill for pregnancy resource centers will enable these facilities to stretch their limited funds further to help even more vulnerable women with much-needed resources such as formula, diapers, and clothing.[68][26] | ” |
In her veto statement, Kelly said:
| “ | I do not believe it is appropriate to divert taxpayer dollars to largely unregulated crisis pregnancy centers. These entities are not medical centers and do not promote evidence-based methods to prevent unplanned pregnancies. This bill goes against the wishes of Kansans. On August 2, 2022, Kansas voters overwhelmingly signaled to politicians that they should stop inserting themselves between women and their private medical decisions.[69][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 85-40, with one Democrat voting with Republicans and one Republican voting with Democrats. In the Senate, the override vote was 29-7, with four not voting.[70]
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly (D) veto on a bill regarding the criminal penalty and restitution for harming or killing certain dogs and horses
On April 29, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of House Bill 2583 which increases "the criminal penalties for harming or killing certain dogs and horses" and requires "restitution for such offense to include certain expenses."[71]
In her veto statement, Kelly said:
| “ | The death of any law enforcement animal is a tragedy. There is no question we should hold those responsible accountable for their actions. While the intention of this bill is commendable, this legislation needs further evaluation and study. First, House Bill 2583 imposes mandatory minimum sentences that disregard important factors that should be left to the discretion of a judge through the regular sentencing process. Second, the mandatory sentences are out of line with other, more severe crimes without justification for why that is required. Third, while the requirement for a psychological evaluation and anger management program are important, we do not apply this same standard to many other heinous crime.[72][26] | ” |
House leadership said:
| “ | Regarding the Governor’s veto message, a mandatory minimum for sentencing for the crime of killing a police dog already existed in current statute and during that time, the convicted must complete a psychological evaluation and anger management course. While those provisions remained in HB 2583, the Governor’s veto message is confusing because she seems to think she can veto current statute. Penalties for harming or killing a police dog were very minimal in Kansas. Many other states and even the federal government have harsher penalties for killing law enforcement animals. Kansas must do more to protect these heroic animals who are partners with their officer/handler, are a valued part of their communities, and serve Kansas every day. With this override of the Governor’s erroneous veto, we will do just that.[73][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 105-20. In the Senate, the override vote was 29-10, with one Democrat voting with Republicans, one Republican voting with Democrats, and one not voting.[74]
Kansas lawmakers override Gov. Laura Kelly (D) veto on a bill regarding sales and use tax laws
On April 30, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of House Bill 2098 which created multiple changes to the state tax code, including, but not limited to, "providing sales tax exemptions for custom meat processing services" and "providing a deduction from sales or compensating use tax when selling and buying different motor vehicles within 120 days."[75]
In her veto statement, Kelly said:
| “ | The intent of House Bill 2098 is on the right track to provide Kansans with sales tax relief. However, the impact these tax cuts would have on the State General Fund cannot be realized without knowing the total cost of all tax bills, including a fair, sustainable, and fiscally responsible tax relief package.[76][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 99-20, with six not voting. In the Senate, the override vote was 37-0, with three not voting.[77]
On April 29, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of Senate Bill 473 which allows an adequate notice to appear to serve as lawful complain, requires a minimum bond premium in district court, and provides "reasons for suspending or terminating authorization of a compensated surety."[78]
In her veto statement, Kelly said:
| “ | While I support the goal of reforming our criminal justice system in relation to pre-trial release, Senate Bill 473 establishes a minimum amount a person must pay a bail bonding company to be released from jail, regardless of the type or severity of their crime. This requires bond companies charge an appearance bond premium of a minimum of 10% of the face amount of the appearance bond, of which half must be received before posting a bond. After thorough review, I am concerned of the impact that this will have on low income, non-violent offenders’ ability to be released and return to their families and jobs.[79][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 87-38, with two Democrats voting with Republicans. In the Senate, the override vote was 27-12, with three Republicans voting with Democrats, one Democrat voting with Republicans, and one not voting.[80]
Kentucky
Kentucky lawmakers override Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of bill that removes the governor's authority to fill U.S. Senate vacancies
On April 12, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of House Bill 622, which amends Kentucky law "to require the Governor to sign a proclamation for an election to fill a vacancy in the office of United States Senator" and "extend the term of the candidate who wins special election to the remainder of the term."[81] The bill was effective immediately. Before the change, the governor had the authority to fill U.S. Senate vacancies via appointment.
House Majority Floor Leader Steven Rudy (R) said:
| “ | This, I think, is truly what the people want and expect should there be a vacancy in their United States senator. If there’s a vacancy, the people should be able to select their U.S. senator.[82][26] | ” |
In his veto statement, Beshear said:
| “ | In House Bill 622, the General Assembly changes its mind for the second time in three years on how vacancies in the United States Senate are filled. Prior to these maneuvers, the same system had been in place since 1942. This administration deserves the same authority as previous administrations.[83][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 81-17, with two not voting. Two Democrats voted with Republicans, while one did not vote. In the Senate, the override vote was 29-5, with four not voting. Two Democrats voted with Republicans.[84]
Kentucky lawmakers override Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of bill regarding ranked-choice voting
On April 12, 2024, Kentucky lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of House Bill 44, which prohibits ranked-choice voting[85] In his veto message, Gov. Beshear's did not mention the bill's impact on ranked-choice voting, instead focusing on the new requirement for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to annually supply death records to the state board of elections.
On social media, the bill’s primary sponsor Rep. John Hodgson (R) said:
| “ | Gov Beshear just vetoed my HB44 regarding cleanup of voter rolls, saying is was unnecessary. The Elections Committee of the Legislature asked the SoS and the Board of Elections to do this process as an experiment last fall, and they were able to remove 11,000 people who had been dead for decades. (Not sure who he has doing his veto research, but I am not impressed). No worries, we will gladly override this silly veto next Friday.[86][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Beshear said:
| “ | Lifetime death records is not a real term used or understood by the Department of Vital Statistics, so such records cannot be supplied. Instead, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services already provides the State Board of Elections with monthly death records. Therefore, House Bill 44 is not necessary, as the existing policy already provides more information than the legislation.[87][26] | ” |
In the Senate, the override vote was 24-8, with six not voting and one Republican voting with Democrats. In the House, the override vote was 79-20, with one Republican voting with Democrats, one Democrat voting with Republicans, and one not voting.[88]
Kentucky lawmakers override Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of omnibus crime bill
On April 12, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of House Bill 5, called the Safer Kentucky Act.[89] The bill enacted over 20 new policies, including creating a state statute for carjacking, establishing a three-strike law that will sentence someone convicted of their third violent felony to life in prison without parole or probation, and permitting law enforcement to issue a $250 fine to anyone found guilty of “camping or sleeping in a public space that is not a campground," with increasing penalties for subsequent offenses.
The bill's sponsor Jared Bauman (R) stated that these changes are intended to address what he called a "crime epidemic." He said:
| “ | We have to put the train back on the tracks because we have completely derailed when it comes to law and order in Jefferson County, and quite frankly, in cities across our country.[90][26] | ” |
In his veto statement, Beshear said:
| “ | The legislature chose to include those good policies with dozens of other measures in one unwieldy bill that would criminalize homelessness and significantly increase incarcerate costs without any additional appropriation.[91][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 73-22, with five not voting and three Republicans voting with Democrats. In the Senate, the override vote was 27-10, with three Republicans voting with Democrats and one not voting.[92]
Kentucky lawmakers override Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of bill regarding the rights of property owners and federal housing vouchers
On March 6, 2024, Kentucky lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of House Bill 18, which makes city and county ordinances requiring landlords to accept federal housing assistance as a source of rent income illegal.[93]
The bill's primary sponsor Rep. Ryan Dotson (R) said:
| “ | It is unfortunate that the Governor chose to veto a bill that will protect a property owner's right to make an important decision regarding what could very well be the largest investment they've ever made. Each time we talk about this bill, I hear from more constituents and folks from across the Commonwealth that they oppose their government forcing them to accept housing funds. Individuals shouldn't be forced to accept less than market value, they shouldn't have to take a loss on their income or investment.[94][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Beshear said:
| “ | House Bill 18 erases a local government’s ability to adopt such ordinances, and mandates that local governments cannot adopt or enforce such ordinances when the person’s lawful source of income to pay rent includes funding from a federal assistance program. Federal assistance is an important tool to help veterans, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and families of low income obtain housing.[95][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 76-19 along party lines, with three not voting. In the Senate, the override vote was 31-7, with one Republican voting with Democrats and one Democrat voting with Republicans.[96]
Kentucky lawmakers override Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of bill regarding the city of Louisville's elections
On April 12, 2024, Kentucky lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of House Bill 388, which makes Louisville's elections for mayor and Metro Council nonpartisan.[97] Only six of 414 cities in Kentucky, including Lexington, have nonpartisan elections.[98]The bill also addressed issues that have followed from the 2003 merger between the City of Louisville and Jefferson County.
House Majority Whip Jason Nemes (R) said:
| “ | If you talk to mayors of (cities with nonpartisan elections), they'll say that it helps them attract more moderates and less partisans to the office, which I think is a good thing.[99][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Beshear said:
| “ | The structure of the Louisville Metro Government was democratically created by the people of Jefferson County through the popular vote of the people of Jefferson County. The General Assembly is attempting to overturn this previous election through House Bill 388. Letting people decide their form of government is a basic tenet of democracy. The legislature claiming that it knows better than the people is antidemocratic.[100][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 71-22 with seven not voting and three Republicans voting with Democrats. In the Senate, the override vote was 22-10, with six not voting and three Republicans voting with Democrats.[101]
North Carolina
North Carolina lawmakers override Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto of a bill regarding election law changes during lame duck session
On December 11, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature voted to override Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of S 382. The bill combined disaster relief funding for communities and businesses affected by Hurricane Helene with various changes to state law, including several related to elections.
In his veto message, Cooper said:
| “ | This legislation was titled disaster relief but instead violates the constitution by taking appointments away from the next Governor for the Board of Elections, Utilities Commission and Commander of the NC Highway Patrol, letting political parties choose appellate judges and interfering with the Attorney General’s ability to advocate for lower electric bills for consumers.[102][26] | ” |
Speaker of the House Tim Moore (R), who supported the bill, said:
| “ | This action item today is going to be critical in making sure North Carolina continues to be able to do what it can to deliver victories for Republicans up and down the ticket and move this country in the right direction.[103][26] | ” |
On December 2, 2024, the Senate voted 30-19 along partisan lines to override the veto. On December 11, 2024, the House voted 72-46 to confirm the override.
North Carolina lawmakers override Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto of bill regarding regulatory changes to the state's building code
On September 11, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto of Senate Bill 166. The bill reduces energy efficiency requirements and reorganizes the state's building code council.[104]
In his veto message, Cooper said:
| “ | By limiting options for energy efficiency and electric vehicles, this legislation prevents North Carolina’s building code from adopting innovations in construction and mobility that save consumers money. This bill also removes subject matter experts from the building code council, including architects, active fire service, a coastal expert, local government officials, and public at large membership, and limits the knowledge and practical experience of the body tasked with ensuring all buildings are safely designed.[105][26] | ” |
State Sen. Steve Jarvis (R), one of the bill's sponsors, said:[106]
| “ | This bill helps to cut unnecessary regulations, making it easier to develop sustainable and affordable housing by reducing administrative hurdles and promoting efficiency.[26] | ” |
On September 9, 2024, the Senate overrode the veto 27-17 along party lines with all Republicans voting to override. On September 11, 2024, the House overrode the veto 70-40, with six Democrats voting with Republicans.
North Carolina lawmakers override Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto of bill regarding the rights of property owners and federal housing vouchers
On September 9, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto of House Bill 556, which makes it illegal for cities and counties to pass or enforce ordinances that would prevent landlords from refusing to lease to individuals who use federal housing assistance programs to help finance their rent.[107]
In his veto message, Cooper said:
| “ | This bill would make it harder for low-income families, the elderly and people with disabilities to find affordable rental housing by preventing local governments from protecting against rent discrimination based on lawful income.[108][26] | ” |
On July 31, 2024, the House overrode the veto 74-40, with three Democrats voting with Republicans. On September 9, 2024, the Senate overrode the veto 27-17 along party lines.[109]
North Carolina lawmakers override Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto of bill that changes the state's masking and campaign finance policies
On June 27, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) veto of House Bill 237, which enhances penalties for people wearing masks while committing crimes or intentionally blocking roadways during demonstrations. The bill also includes a campaign donation provision, which "would allow wealthy donors to give money to special federal political organizations that can then send the money to state and county parties."[110]
In a statement following the governor’s June 21, 2024, veto, Sen. Danny Earl Britt (R) said:
| “ | Bad actors have been using masks to conceal their identity when they commit crimes and intimidate the innocent. Instead of helping put an end to this threatening behavior, the governor wants to continue encouraging these thugs by giving them more time to hide from the consequences of their actions.[111][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Cooper said:
| “ | This legislation creates a gaping loophole for secret, unlimited campaign money in the middle of an election year. While voters are kept in the dark, this scheme allows anonymous out-of-state billionaires to flood North Carolina with campaign contributions to rescue extreme right-wing candidates that Republicans now fear will lose. The legislation also removes protections and threatens criminal charges for people who want to protect their health by wearing a mask.[112][26] | ” |
On June 26, 2024, the House overrode the governor's veto 70-46 along party lines. The Senate overrode the veto on June 27, 2024, 30-14, also along party lines.[113]
Ohio
Ohio lawmakers override Gov. Mike DeWine's (R) veto of bill barring minors from receiving puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or gender transition surgery
On January 24, 2024, lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Mike DeWine's (R) veto of House Bill 68, which bars minors from receiving puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or gender transition surgery. It also states that biological males and females must play on separate sporting teams.[114][115]
In a statement following the governor’s December 29, 2023, veto, House Speaker Jason Stephens (R) said:
| “ | It is disappointing that the Governor vetoed House Bill 68, the SAFE Act and Save Women’s Sports. The bill sponsors, and The House, have dedicated nearly three years to get the bill right — to empower parents and protect children. It was passed by veto-proof majorities in each chamber.[116][26] | ” |
In his veto message, DeWine said his veto was ultimately about protecting human life. He said:
| “ | Many parents have told me that their child would be dead today if they had not received the treatment they received from an Ohio children’s hospital. I have also been told, by those that are now grown adults, that but for this care, they would have taken their lives when they were teenagers. ... Were I to sign Substitute House Bill 68 or were Substitute House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the State, that the government, knows what is best medically for a child rather than the two people who love that child the most, the parents.[117][26] | ” |
On January 10, 2024, the House overrode the governor's veto 65-28 along party lines. The Senate overrode the veto on January 24, 2024. Senators voted 24-8, with one Republican, Sen. Nathan Manning, voting "no" alongside seven Democrats.[118]
Vermont
Vermont lawmakers override Gov. Phil Scott (R) veto on a bill regarding the establishment of an overdose prevention site in Burlington
On June 17, 2024, lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of House Bill 72 which proposes the elimination of "18 criminal and civil penalties for operation of a safer drug consumption program."[119]
In his veto statement, Scott said:
| “ | While these sites are well-intentioned, this costly experiment will divert financial resources from proven prevention, treatment and recovery strategies, as well as harm reduction initiatives that facilitate entry into treatment rather than continued use. While it may consolidate the widespread drug use in Burlington into a smaller area within the city, it will come at the expense of the treatment and recovery needs of other communities, for whom such a model will not work.[120][26] | ” |
Senate President Pro Tem Philip Baruth said:
| “ | The data is clear. Overdose prevention centers save lives, connect people to treatment, reduce pressures on emergency rooms and Emergency Medical Services, and reduce public drug consumption and discarded supplies in our communities.[121][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 104-41, with five Democrats joining Republicans. In the Senate, the override vote was 20-9, with one Republican voting with Democrats and three Democrats voting with Republicans.[122]
Vermont lawmakers override Gov. Phil Scott (R) veto on a bill regarding the state's property tax yields
On June 17, 2024, lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of House Bill 887 which increases the average property tax rate to fund Vermont's public education system.[123]
In his veto statement, Scott said:
| “ | Vermonters cannot afford a double-digit property tax increase. Especially while facing a historic eight-percent property tax increase last year, a 20% increase in DMV fees, a new payroll tax taking effect July 1, increased fuel costs to heat homes and businesses from the Clean Heat Standard, and increased electric costs if my veto of the Renewable Energy Standard is not sustained. All on top of several years of inflation – the most regressive tax of all – driving up the cost of household essentials like food, clothing and services faster than paychecks are growing.[124][26] | ” |
Senate President Pro Tem Philip Baruth said:
| “ | Not a single member of the Legislature would choose to raise property taxes if it could be avoided. But our local districts have sent us the bill that reflects all of the rising costs they face – and pretending that bill doesn’t exist, or putting it on the credit card, won’t help any of us.[125][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 103-42, with five not voting and four Democrats joining Republicans. In the Senate, the override vote was 22-7 along party lines.[126]
Vermont lawmakers override Gov. Phil Scott (R) veto on a bill regarding land use and development law
On June 17, 2024, lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of House Bill 687 which proposes making "multiple changes to the State land use and development law, known as Act 250," in addition to "making changes to the regional plans and municipal plans."[127]The bill aims to strike a balance between proponents for housing growth, who argue that "the regulation adds time, cost and risk to the development process," and environmentalists, who have argued that "Act 250 could do more to protect sensitive habitats as the climate changes."[128]
In his veto statement, Scott said:
| “ | H.687 is heavily focused on conservation and actually expands Act 250 regulation. And it does so at a pace that will slow down current housing efforts. Vermonters need us to focus on building and restoring the homes communities desperately need to revitalize working class neighborhoods, reverse our negative demographic trends, and support economic investment in the future.[129][26] | ” |
Senate President Pro Tem Philip Baruth said:
| “ | Act 250 has been a significant part of shaping the Vermont we know and love today. However, Vermont’s chronic housing shortage has made it abundantly clear that this fifty year old land use law must be reimagined in order to identify necessary reforms to promote housing development while also protecting Vermont’s natural resources.[130][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 107-38, with two Republicans voting with the majority, one Democrat voting with Republicans, and five not voting. In the Senate, the override vote was 21-8, with one Democrat joining Republicans.[131]
Vermont lawmakers override Gov. Phil Scott (R) veto on a bill regarding neonicotinoid pesticides
On June 17, 2024, lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of House Bill 706 which bans neonicotinoid pesticides, which is toxic to bees.[132]
In his veto statement, Scott said:
| “ | To put the impacts of this bill into context, Vermont grows about 90,000 acres of corn, while the U.S. grows 90 million acres of corn, and almost all corn seed sold in the U.S. is treated with neonics. This would put Vermont farmers at a significant disadvantage.
This is especially concerning given the fact Vermont is struggling to keep dairy farmers, and many more have been put at risk through higher taxes and energy prices, crop losses associated with last year’s spring frost, and summer and winter floods.[133][26] |
” |
Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives Jill Krowinski said:
| “ | “H.706 bans the use of neonicotinoid pesticides which is necessary to protect the pollinators that are integral to our agricultural community. This legislation takes an evidenced-based approach to restrict these highly toxic pesticides, but also includes a timeline and waiver process designed to protect Vermont farmers from undue harm. Vermont has an incredible history of agriculture and working lands and this bill will help preserve this rich history for years to come.[134][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 114-31, with 10 Republicans joining the majority, four Democrats joining Republicans, and five not voting. In the Senate, the override vote was 20-9, with two Democrats joining Republicans.[135]
Vermont lawmakers override Gov. Phil Scott (R) veto on a bill regarding restorative justice
On June 17, 2024, lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of House Bill 645 that expands "approaches to restorative justice."[136]
In his veto statement, Scott said:
| “ | While I understand the desire to help those, particularly youth, who need second, third and even fourth chances to get their lives on track, H.645 is not workable because it is not funded.[137][26] | ” |
Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives Jill Krowinski said:
| “ | The expansion of restorative justice, as proposed in H.645, comes at a critical time for Vermont. With increased community concerns regarding public safety and the challenges of court backlogs, along with mounting financial pressures in all areas of state services, it is essential that we invest in public safety measures that are both effective and timely. This bill is critical in making sure Vermonters have timely access to justice and there are adequate resources available to keep our communities safe.[138][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 110-35, with one Republican joining the majority and five not voting. In the Senate, the override vote was 21-8, with one Democrat joining Republicans.[139]
Vermont lawmakers override Gov. Phil Scott (R) veto on a bill regarding the Renewable Energy Standard
On June 17, 2024, lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled legislature overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of House Bill 289 that aims to increase the state's reliance on renewable energy.[140]
In his veto statement, Scott said:
| “ | I don’t believe there is any debate that H.289 will raise Vermonters’ utility rates, likely by hundreds of millions of dollars. And while that in itself is reason enough to earn a veto, it is even more frustrating when you consider our Department of Public Service proposed to the Legislature a much stronger plan at a fraction of the cost. Their proposal was crafted after 18 months of engagement with Vermonters about what they want their energy policy to look like. It would get us to where we all want to go faster, more affordably and more equitably than H.289.[141][26] | ” |
Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives Jill Krowinski said:
| “ | The renewable energy standard will put Vermont on track to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2035, dramatically reducing planet-warming carbon pollution and saving Vermonters money over time. With his veto of the Renewable Energy Standard, Governor Scott attempted to continue a pattern of rejecting critical progress on climate action. However, while Vermonters continue to face the impacts of recent climate disasters, the Senate has made clear that the status quo is unacceptable and will continue our unwavering commitment to addressing the climate crisis.[142][26] | ” |
In the House, the override vote was 102-43, with five not voting and five Democrats voting with Republicans. In the Senate, the override vote was 21-8, with one Democrat joining Republicans.[143]
2023
Kansas
Kansas Republican-controlled Legislature overrides Gov. Laura Kelly (D) veto on a bill regarding the use of facilities by different sexes
On April 27, 2023, the Kansas State Legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of Senate Bill 180, a bill defining men and women based on the sex organs they were born with for purposes of state laws, rules, and regulations. The bill requires athletic venues, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, jails and prisons, locker rooms, and bathrooms to consider the distinction.
Supporters of the bill said that it takes a stance for Kansas' women and girls and "their right to privacy, safety, and dignity in single-sex spaces."[144] In a statement following the governor’s veto, Speaker Dan Hawkins (R), said:
| “ | With the veto of the Women’s Bill of rights, Governor Kelly has chosen to side with left-wing activists who seek to change the definition of a woman and ignore the biological differences that exist between the sexes. Ignoring these differences is reckless and exposes females to specific forms of violence, including sexual violence, and compromises the safety of female-only spaces such as restrooms, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and prisons. House Republicans believe biological females in Kansas deserve privacy, safety, and dignity in single sex spaces and are dedicated to ensuring the current laws that have historically protected that right can continue to do so.[145][26] | ” |
In her veto message, Kelly said that the legislation would harm Kansas' economy. The governor said:[146]
| “ | Companies have made it clear that they are not interested in doing business with states that discriminate against workers and their families. By stripping away rights from Kansans and opening the state up to expensive and unnecessary lawsuits, these bills would hurt our ability to continue breaking economic records and landing new business deals. I’m focused on the economy. Anyone care to join me?[26] | ” |
The House overrode the governor's veto 84-40, with all 84 Republicans voting in favor and all but one Democrat voting against. Representative Brad Boyd (D), was absent and did not vote.[147]The Senate voted 28-12 to override the veto, with Senator John Doll (R) joining all Democrats in voting against. At the time, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and the House.[148]
On April 26, 2023, the Kansas State Legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly’s vetoes of two abortion-related bills: HB 2313 and HB 2439. HB 2313—the Born-alive Infants Protection Act—required healthcare providers to give medical care to any fetus that "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles" regardless of the way it was delivered. HB 2439 required abortion providers to tell patients that the effects of drugs prescribed for the purpose of inducing an abortion can be reversed.
Supporters of HB 2313 said the bill would protect newborns who survived unsuccessful abortion procedures.[149] Representative Clarke Sanders (R), a supporter of the bill, said:
| “ | It is proper to offer medical care to a living, breathing, heart-beating, muscle-moving human being."[149][26] | ” |
In her veto message, Kelly said that HB 2313 was "misleading and unnecessary."The governor said:[150]
| “ | Federal law already protects newborns, and the procedure being described in this bill does not exist in Kansas in the era of modern medicine. The intent of this bill is to interfere in medical decisions that should remain between doctors and their patients.[26] | ” |
Supporters of HB 2439 said women had the right to know that the effects of prescription drugs to induce abortions could be reversed.[151] Sen. Beverly Gossage (R), a supporter of the bill, said:
| “ | Basically it is saying if you are a woman, if you are seeking an abortion, you do have the right to know that there is such a thing as APR, abortion pill reversal, possibility for you.[152][26] | ” |
Opponents of HB 2439 said the information regarding the reversibility of abortion procedures contained in the bill is medically disputed.[153] Sen. Dinah Sykes (D), an opponent of the bill, said:
| “ | This is bad policy because it requires physicians to lie to their patients because members of this body think they know better than those doctors.[153][26] | ” |
On HB 2313, the Senate voted 31-9, with all 29 Republicans, Democrat Sen. Jeff Pittman, and Independent Sen. Dennis Pyle, voting to override the veto.[154] The House overrode the veto 87-37, with all 85 Republicans and two Democrats— Rep. Jason Probst and Rep. Marvin Robinson II—voting in favor. [155]
At the time of the vote, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both chambers. The party had a 85-40 in the House, and a 29-11 in the Senate.
Republican-controlled legislature overrides Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of bill regarding biological sex and women's sports
On April 5, 2023, the Kansas State Legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of a bill prohibiting biologically male students from participating in women's sports. House Bill 2238 required public school sports teams "whose students or teams compete against a public educational entity to be expressly designated based on biological sex."
Under this bill, biologically male students who would be prohibited from participating in women's sports. Biologically female students would be allowed to participate in men's sports.[156]
Supporters of the bill said it protected the rights of female athletes. In a statement, House Speaker Daniel Hawkins (R) said:
| “ | The Fairness in Women’s Sports act protects the rights of female athletes in the state by requiring that female student athletic teams only include members who are biologically female. House Republicans are united in our commitment to defending the intention of Title IX.[157][26] | ” |
In her veto message, Kelly said that the bill would harm the mental health of young athletes. The governor wrote:
| “ | It won’t increase any test scores. It won’t help any kids read or write. It won’t help any teachers prepare our kids for the real world. Here’s what this bill would actually do: harm the mental health of our students.[158][26] | ” |
The House overrode the governor's veto 84-40, with 83 Republicans and one Democrat—Marvin Robinson II—voting in favor. Two Republican Representatives—Rep. Mark Schreiber (R) and Rep. David Younger (R) voted against overriding the veto.[159] In the Senate, members overrode the veto 28-12, with 28 Republicans and no Democrats voting in favor. One Republican, Sen. Brenda Dietrich (R) voted against overriding the veto.[160] At the time, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.
Kentucky
Kentucky Republican lawmakers override Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) veto on transgender students bill
On March 29, 2023, the Kentucky State Legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) veto on Senate Bill 150, a bill that would allow teachers to refer to students using pronouns other than the students' preferred ones, prohibit discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity with students, and prohibit social, psychological, and medical treatments for transgender adults and minors.[161]
Supporters of the bill argued that it would prevent transgender children from receiving social, psychological, and medical treatments for transgender minors that they may come to regret as adults. Senator Robby Mills (R), who supported the bill, said:
| “ | Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, when administered to youth under 18 for the purpose of altering their appearance, is dangerous for the health of that child.[110][26] | ” |
Opponents of the bill argued the bill would prevent families from making informed medical decisions for themselves. In his veto message, Gov. Beshear said:
| “ | Senate Bill 150 allows too much government interference in personal healthcare issues and rips away the freedom of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Senate Bill 150 further strips freedom from parents to make personal family decisions on the names their children are called and how people refer to them.[162][26] | ” |
Beshear vetoed the bill on March 24, 2023. In Kentucky, a majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. The Republicans have a supermajority in both the House and Senate.[162]
The House overrode the veto by a vote of 76-23, and the Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 29-8.[110] In the Senate, one Republican-Danny Carroll-voted against overriding the veto. In the House, four Republican representatives Kimberly Poore Moser, Kimberly Banta, Stephanie A. Dietz, and Killian Timoney voted against overriding the veto while one Democrat-Ashley Tackett Laferty-voted in favor.[163]
Louisiana
Republican-controlled legislature overrides Gov. John Bel Edwards' (D) veto of bill prohibiting gender treatments for minors
On July 18, 2023, the Louisiana State Legislature overrode Gov. John Bel Edwards' (D) veto of a House Bill 648 (H.B. 648) prohibiting healthcare professionals from providing "certain services, treatments, and procedures that alter the sex characteristics of" individuals under the age of 18.[164][165][166] The bill also established penalties for healthcare professionals found in violation of the act including the revocation of medical licenses and legal damages.[165]
The medicinal and surgical procedures described in the act are often referred to as gender reassignment treatment or gender-affirming care, the process of changing a person's body to conform to their gender identity.[167]
Proponents of the bill said it would protect children and prevent Louisiana from being a place where individuals from other states travel to receive such care. Attorney General Jeff Landry (R), a candidate for governor in 2023, said the bill sends "a clear signal that woke liberal agendas that are destructive to children will not be tolerated in Louisiana."[168] Rep. Gabe Firment (R), the bill's sponsor, said:
| “ | We cannot allow Louisiana to become a sanctuary state for the sterilization of innocent children.[169][26] | ” |
In his veto announcement, Bel Edwards said:
| “ | This bill denies healthcare to a very small, unique, and vulnerable group of children ... It takes away parental rights to work with a physician to make important healthcare decisions for children experiencing a gender crisis that could quite literally save their lives. And, without doubt, it is part of a targeted assault on children that the bill itself deems not 'normal.'[170][26] | ” |
Bel Edwards vetoed H.B. 648 on June 29, 2023. In Louisiana, a two-thirds majority of votes is required to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held veto-proof majorities in both chambers.
In the House, 69 of the chamber's 71 Republicans voted to override the veto, joined by seven Democrats. Twenty-two Democrats and Rep. Joseph Marino (I) voted against the override. Four Democrats and two Republicans did not vote, resulting in a final vote of 76-23 in favor of the override.[171]
In the Senate, 26 of the chamber's 27 Republicans voted to override the veto, joined by two Democrats: Sens. Katrina Jackson and Gregory Tarver. Sen. Fred Mills Jr. (R) joined the remaining 10 Democrats in opposition, resulting in a final vote of 28-11 in favor of the override.[172]
North Carolina
North Carolina lawmakers override Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of a bill making new amendments to voting procedures
On October 11, 2023, the General Assembly of North Carolina voted to override Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of Senate Bill 747. The bill removed 3-day grace periods for mail-in ballots, eliminated private funding to administer elections, allowed poll observers to take notes and photographs of a voter's marked ballot, and allowed observers to listen to conversations between election officials and a voter while at a voting place. The bill also required, “…the State Bureau of Investigation to investigate all cases arising from fraud in connection with elections in North Carolina.”[173]
Proponents of S.B. 747 said it would increase election integrity and security. Sen. Warren Daniel (R), one of the bill's sponsors, said:
| “ | When North Carolina voters vote, democracy wins. That's why we are creating a secure election system that makes it easy to vote and protects election integrity. But Gov. Cooper wants his handpicked partisans running our elections and he apparently feels threatened by North Carolinians observing what happens in their polling places. North Carolina is not a third-world dictatorship, no matter how hard Gov. Cooper tries to make it one. We have an open democracy. By overriding this veto, we'll guarantee every citizen's right to vote with confidence in the security of our elections.[174][26] | ” |
Cooper said the bill discouraged people from voting and promoted voter intimidation. In Cooper’s veto statement, he said:
| “ | This legislation has nothing to do with election security and everything to do with Republicans keeping and gaining power…It requires valid votes to be tossed out unnecessarily, schemes to restrict early voting and absentee ballots, encourages voter intimidation and attempts to give Republican legislators the authority to decide contested election results. [175][26] | ” |
Cooper vetoed S.B. 747 on August 24, 2023. North Carolina requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of the legislature to override a veto. At the time of the override vote, Republicans had a veto-proof supermajority in both the House and Senate.
The House overrode the veto of S.B. 747 with a vote of 72-44. All 72 Republicans voted in favor of overriding the veto, while 44 Democrats opposed. Four members of the House were absent and did not vote: Rep. Kelly Alexander, Jr. (D), Rep. Cecil Brockman (D), Rep. James Roberson (D), and Rep. Caleb Rudow (D).[176] The Senate overrode the veto 30 to 19. Nineteen Democrats opposed the override, and all 30 Republicans voted in favor of it. Sen. Mike Woodard (D) was absent and did not vote. [177]
Republican-controlled state legislature overrides Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of a bill changing the structure to appoint county and state boards of elections
On October 10, 2023 the General Assembly of North Carolina overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of Senate Bill 749. This bill removed the governor's power to appoint members on local and state election boards. The previous election board structure had a 3-2 Democratic majority. S.B. 749 would require election boards to have an evenly split number of Democrat and Republican appointees, with eight members total. [178]
Supporters of the bill said its bipartisan split of state and local election boards would promote fair representation and the best interests of all voters, as it would not uphold single-party control. State Sen. Warren Daniel (R), who sponsored the bill, said:
| “ | North Carolinians deserve to have the knowledge and confidence that their state and local boards of elections are operating in the best interest of the voters, not a particular political party. Single-party control has led to distrust and skepticism among voters. Voters should be asking themselves why Gov. Cooper is so desperate to maintain his partisan grip on the State Board of Elections. I look forward to once again overriding Gov. Cooper’s veto and establishing truly bipartisan boards of elections in North Carolina.[179][26] | ” |
Cooper vetoed the bill on September 23, 2023. He said S.B. 749 did not comply with the separation of powers in the North Carolina constitution. Cooper said:
| “ | The legislative takeover of state and local elections boards could doom our state’s elections to gridlock and severely limit early voting. It also creates a grave risk that Republican legislators or courts would be empowered to change the results of an election if they don’t like the winner. That’s a serious threat to our democracy, particularly after the nation just saw a presidential candidate try to strongarm state officials into reversing his losing election result. Courts have already ruled the ideas in this bill unconstitutional, and voters overwhelmingly said no when the legislature tried to change the constitution.[180][26] | ” |
The North Carolina General Assembly required a three-fifths majority vote in each chamber of the legislature to override a veto. At the time of the override vote, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate.
The Senate overrode the veto with a vote of 30-19. All 30 Republican members voted in favor of the override, and 19 Democratic members opposed it. The only member who did not vote was Sen. Mike Woodard (D).[181] The House overrode the veto 72-44. Seventy-two Republicans voted to override the bill, while 44 Democrats opposed. Rep. Kelly Alexander, Jr. (D), Rep. Cecil Brockman (D), Rep. James Roberson (D), and Rep. Caleb Rudow (D) were absent and did not vote.[182]
On October 17, 2023, Cooper filed a motion for temporary restraining order to halt S.B. 749 from taking effect on January 1, 2023. This restraining order requested a single Superior Court judge to overview the case before it moved forward to a three-judge panel. The motion stated that the veto override blocked the governor’s ability to carry out constitutional duties and ensure a separation of powers. After filing the motion, Cooper released a statement:
| “ | The deadlocks that will be created on these new Boards of Elections at the state and local levels likely will reduce early voting and create longer lines at the polls…It will also undermine fair elections and faith in our democracy by sending disputes to our highly partisan legislature and courts. Both the Courts and the people have rejected this bad idea and the meaning of our Constitution doesn’t change just because the Supreme Court has new Justices.[183][26] | ” |
Republican-controlled state legislature overrides Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of a bill reducing the appointment powers of the governor
On October 9, 2023, the General Assembly of North Carolina overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of Senate Bill 512. This bill reduced the governor's authority to appoint members to commissions and major boards, like the Commission for Public Health, N.C. Utility Commission, and the Board of Transportation. In North Carolina, the designation of members to state boards and commissions has been historically reserved for the governor. The bill would reduce the governor's appointees from 66 to 42.[184]
Supporters of S.B. 512 said the bill would create a balance of power and representation to boards and commissions. State Sen. Warren Daniel (R) who sponsored the bill, said that Cooper did not include diverse members to state boards and commissions. In a statement, Daniel said:
| “ | Our state’s boards and commissions are often overlooked, but their regulatory authority has substantial impacts on our lives. Gov. Cooper has taken advantage of his appointment power by choosing members with no regard for the diverse makeup of our state. The legislature is the elected body closest to the people of North Carolina and has the ability to recruit a qualified, diverse roster of appointees. Senate Bill 512 balances appointment power between the legislative and executive branches and brings better representation to North Carolina’s boards and commissions. I look forward to joining my colleagues in overriding Gov. Cooper’s misguided veto.[185][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Cooper said the override of S.B. 512 violated a separation of power within North Carolina’s State Constitution. Cooper said:
| “ | This law is a blatantly unconstitutional legislative power grab...Over the years, the North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly held in bipartisan decisions that the legislature cannot seize executive power like this no matter what political parties control which offices. The efforts of Republican legislators to destroy the checks and balances in our constitution are bad for people and bad for our democracy.[186][26] | ” |
Cooper vetoed S.B. 512 on August 24, 2023. The North Carolina General Assembly requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate to override a veto. At the time of the override vote, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the legislature.
The Senate overrode the veto of S.B. 512 with a vote of 30-19. Thirty Republicans voted in favor of the veto, and 19 Democrats opposed it. Sen. Mike Woodard (D) was the only member who did not vote.[187]The House overrode the veto with a vote of 72-44. All 72 Republicans voted to override the veto, and 44 Democrats voted against it. Four members of the House did not vote: Rep. Kelly Alexander, Jr. (D), Rep. Cecil Brockman (D), Rep. James Roberson (D), and Rep. Caleb Rudow (D). [188]
After the North Carolina General Assembly overrode Governor Cooper's veto of S.B. 512, Cooper filed a lawsuit and a temporary restraining order against the bill blocking it from taking effect. It was filed against the State of North Carolina, the North Carolina Speaker of the House Timothy K. Moore, and the President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate Phil Berger. The lawsuit said the override of S.B. 512 did not allow Cooper to comply with separation of power principles and took away his ability to have executive authority over administration principles. The lawsuit stated:
| “ | They also fail to respect fundamental principles of representative government and the basic guarantees of the North Carolina Constitution, thus requiring the Governor to again secure the constitutional rights of his office and protect the constitutional powers allocated to the executive and judicial branches of state government by the people.[189][26] | ” |
Republican-controlled legislature overrides Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of a bill requiring public schools to alert parents of students' pronoun and name changes
On August 16, 2023, the General Assembly of North Carolina overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of Senate Bill 49. The bill, known as the Parents' Bill of Rights, required all public schools in North Carolina to inform a parent if their child uses a different pronoun or name in school. S.B. also outlines that, “Instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality shall not be included in the curriculum provided in grades kindergarten through fourth grade.”[190]
Supporters of the S.B. 49 said the bill focused on a parent's right to have a say in the religious and moral upbringing of their child. State Sen. Amy Galey (R), who sponsored the bill, said:
| “ | Parents have the right to know what is going on with their children, period… Employees of the state public school employees must not be allowed to just conspire against parents to hide truth about their children.[191][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) said that S.B. 49 would bring political disputes to public schools and affect the relationship between parents, students, and school administrators. The governor stated:
| “ | Parents are the most essential educators for their children and their involvement must be encouraged, but this bill will scare teachers into silence by injecting fear and uncertainty into classrooms. This “Don’t Say Gay” bill also hampers the important and sometimes lifesaving role of educators as trusted advisers when students have nowhere else to turn. The rights of parents are well established in state law, so instead of burdening schools with their political culture wars, legislators should help them with better teacher pay and more investments in students.[192][26] | ” |
Governor Cooper vetoed S.B. 49 on July 5, 2023. North Carolina requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to override a veto. During this time North Carolina had Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the legislature.
The House overrode the veto with a vote of 72-47. All 72 Republicans voted in favor of the veto, and 47 Democrats opposed. Rep. Kelly Alexander, Jr. (D) was the only member absent and did not vote. [193] The Senate overrode the veto with a vote of 27-18. Twenty-seven Republicans voted in favor of the veto and 18 Democrats opposed it. Five Senators were absent and did not vote: Sen. Lisa Barnes (R), Sen. Kevin Corbin (R), Sen. H. Dean Proctor (R), Sen. Kandie Smith (D), and Sen. Dan Blue Jr. (D). [194]
Republican-controlled legislature overrides Gov. Roy Cooper’s (D) veto of 12-week abortion ban
On May 16, 2023, the General Assembly of North Carolina overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill banning most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Senate Bill 20 made it unlawful to “advise, procure, or cause a miscarriage or abortion” after the twelfth week of pregnancy.
Supporters of the bill said it affirmed the value of human life.[195] In a statement, House Speaker Tim Moore (R), said:
| “ | Senate Bill 20 will save lives and provide needed support for women and families while putting North Carolina’s abortion law in line with the most of rest of the free world.[196][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Cooper said Republican legislators broke their promises to protect women’s reproductive freedom. The governor said:
| “ | North Carolinians now understand that Republicans are unified in their assault on women’s reproductive freedom and we are energized to fight back on this and other critical issues facing our state. I will continue doing everything I can to protect abortion access in North Carolina because women’s lives depend on it.[197][26] | ” |
The House overrode the governor's veto 72-48, with all 72 Republicans voting in favor and all 48 Democrats voting against. The Senate voted 30-20 to override the veto, also along party lines. At the time, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and the House.[198]
Vermont
On May 11, 2023, the Vermont State Legislature overrode Gov. Phil Scotts’ veto of a bill directing the Public Utility Commission to create rules to lower the thermal sector's greenhouse gas emissions in Vermont. The bill, S.5 (Act 18), would create a Clean Heat Standard (CHS) that would require entities that import heating fuel into the state to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through "clean heat credits." According to the bill, entities would "need to either generate or purchase clean heat credits sufficient to cover their required amount every year."[199]
Supporters of the bill said it would help smooth the transition away from fossil-fuel energy sources. [200] In a statement, Representative Scott Campbell (D), said:
| “ | The challenge of helping our constituents to adapt lies in smoothing the transition, the inevitable transition, to a dramatically less fossil fuel dependent lifestyle. It will not be, it cannot be, entirely cost free. But the longer we delay the higher the costs and the greater the disruption especially to those closest to the edge economically.[201][26] | ” |
In his veto message, Gov. Scott said:[202]
| “ | I believe this law could impose significant costs on Vermonters who can least afford it, and make Vermont even less affordable. I want to thank the many thousands of Vermonters who contacted their legislators on this bill, and while they may feel ignored, I want to assure them that this conversation is not over. I will keep Vermonters updated and informed of the mission the PUC has now been charged to complete, and be their voice along the way.[26] | ” |
The House overrode the governor's veto 107-42, with all 106 Democrats and one Republican, Chris Taylor, voting in favor of the veto. The Senate voted 20-10 to override the veto, with three Democratic senators—Robert Starr, Richard Mazza, Irene Wrenner—voting “no." At the time, Democrats held veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and the House.[203]
2022
Kansas
Republican-controlled legislature overrides Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of redistricting maps
On Feb. 9, 2022, the Kansas State Legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of a bill creating new boundaries for the state's congressional districts. Senate Bill 355 (SB355), also known as Ad Astra 2, drew new lines for Kansas' four congressional districts and was part of redistricting in Kansas following the 2020 United States Census.
Supporters of the bill said that it met standards for redistricting and preserved existing districts. Kansas State Senate leadership, represented by Senate President Ty Masterson (R), Senate Vice President Rick Wilborn (R), and Senate Majority Leader Larry Alley (R), issued a statement soon after Kelly's veto, saying:
| “ | It is disappointing that the governor chose to veto the Ad Astra 2 Congressional Map. The map is reflective of the testimony we received from the public, has zero deviation between Congressional districts, creates compact and contiguous districts, preserves existing district cores, and groups together communities of interest. It is also politically fair, keeping all four members of Congress within their current seats, and each would have still won had the Ad Astra 2 map been in place in 2020. All in all, the Ad Astra 2 Map will serve Kansas well and accordingly, we will work to override the governor’s veto in short order.[204][26] | ” |
Kelly's veto message claimed that the bill's borders did not meet redistricting guidelines. The governor said that the new borders did not follow "established case law and criteria on how to draw Kansas districts," specifically referring to requirements for "protecting communities of interest, preserving the core of existing congressional districts, and ensuring that whole counties are in the same congressional district if possible."[205] Kelly said that the bill "does not follow these guidelines and provides no justification for deviation from these guidelines," writing that "several alternatives would allow for the same deviation as Ad Astra 2 while protecting the core of the existing congressional districts and without diluting minority communities' voting strength."[205]
Kelly vetoed the bill on Feb. 3, 2022. In Kansas, a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.
The House overrode the veto by a vote of 85-37, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Rep. Randy Garber (R) joined 36 Democrats in voting to sustain the veto.[206] The Senate overrode the veto a day earlier on Feb. 8, 2022 by a vote of 27-11, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans and all votes against coming from Democrats.[207]
Kentucky
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) vetoes of redistricting maps
On Jan. 20, 2022, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) vetoes of two bills establishing the state's new congressional and state House maps. House Bill 2 (HB2) set new lines for Kentucky's state House, while Senate Bill 3 (SB3) drew new boundaries for Kentucky's six congressional districts. Both bills were part of Kentucky's redistricting process following the 2020 United States census.
Proponents of the new redistricting plans said they accurately represented Kentucky's population. Kentucky House Speaker David Osborne (R) issued a response to Beshear's vetoes, saying:
| “ | He is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and he knows it. This proposal meets all legal considerations. It splits no precincts, divides the fewest number of counties possible, and preserves communities of interest. As a result of carefully and intentionally following the guidelines, it even has the added benefit of significantly increasing minority representation. By issuing this veto, the Governor is showing that at best he is poorly informed, and at worst it is blatant political posturing. We will use our legislative authority to override this veto.[208][26] | ” |
Beshear's veto messages alleged that the new redistricting plans were gerrymandering. The governor called HB2 "an unconstitutional political gerrymander that prevents some communities from having their voices heard in Frankfort," and said that it "appears designed to deprive certain communities of representation."[209] On SB3, Beshear again alleged "unconstitutional political gerrymandering."[210] The governor wrote:
| “ | Under this map, someone driving from Lexington to Louisville would cross five of the state's congressional districts, but it would take over four hours to get from one side of the First District to the other. Plainly, this map is not designed to provide fair representation to the people of Kentucky and was not necessary because of population changes.[210][26] | ” |
Beshear vetoed both bills on Jan. 19, 2022. In Kentucky, a majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.
On HB2, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 69-23, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Rep. Lynn Bechler (R) joined 22 Democrats in voting against it.[211] The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 24-10, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. State Sens. Adrienne Southworth (R) and Donald Douglas (R) joined eight Democrats in voting against.[211]
On SB3, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 64-24, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Reps. Jim Gooch (R), Chad McCoy (R), and Walker Thomas (R) joined 21 Democrats in voting against. [212] The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 26-8, with 23 Republicans joined by State Sens. Morgan McGarvey (D), Dennis Parrett (D), and Robin Webb (D) voting in favor. State Sens. Adrienne Southworth (R), Danny Carroll (R), and Jimmy Higdon (R) and five Democrats opposed the override.[212]
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) vetoes of three bills
On April 13, 2022, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) vetoes of three bills. House Bill 3 (HB3) included provisions that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, restricted the distribution of abortion pills by mail, added new requirements for minors seeking abortions, and created a certification and monitoring system for abortions and physicians that perform them.[213] House Bill 9 (HB9) created funding for public charter schools in the state alongside a pilot program requiring that a charter school be authorized in Louisville and Northern Kentucky by 2023.[214] Senate Bill 83 (SB83) prohibited female-identifying transgender students from participating in school sports by requiring that interscholastic athletics be organized by the biological sex of students and banning students designated as male from participating in sports designated as female.[215]
Proponents of HB3 said that the bill was focused on safety and did not infringe on the right to an abortion. Speaking soon after she filed the bill in February 2022, Rep. Nancy Tate (R), the bill's sponsor, said:
| “ | This bill isn’t about ending abortion. While I support that wholeheartedly and believe my fellow Kentuckians do as well, that debate is for another time and place. Until that day comes, our goal is to ensure the procedure is the result of a fully informed, educated choice that takes into consideration the health and safety of both the unborn child and his or her mother.[216][26] | ” |
Beshear's veto message for HB3 argued that the bill did infringe on the right to an abortion, also saying that it did not properly fund its programs or create exceptions for rape and incest. The governor said:
| “ | House Bill 3 is likely unconstitutional. Similar statutes in Texas and Louisiana have been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Specifically, House Bill 3 requires physicians performing nonsurgical procedures to maintain hospital admitting privileges in geographical proximity to the location where the procedure is performed. The Supreme Court has ruled such requirements unconstitutional as it makes it impossible for women, including a child who is a victim of rape or incest, to obtain a procedure in certain areas of the state.[217][26] | ” |
Proponents of HB9 said that it was necessary to ensure parent choice and did not force charter schools onto school districts. Speaking on the House floor before the bill was vetoed, Rep. Chad McCoy (R), the bill's primary sponsor, said that the bill's primary change was requiring that the Kentucky Department of Education "tell you why they're denying you or approving you and say why this is or is not something good for the local community" in the event of a charter school applicant appealing a local school board's decision to approve or deny a charter school.[218] McCoy also said that "parents need choice, and this bill gives choice in our public school system."[218]
Beshear's veto message of HB9 alleged that the bill redirected funds meant for existing public schools. The governor argued that it "diverts taxpayer funds away from our already underfunded public schools in the Commonwealth," and that "through House Bill 9, the General Assembly violates its constitutional duty, permitting schools that are not substantially uniform and that do not provide equal education opportunities to all children, and further distributing funds in such a way that each child in the commonwealth will not be able to obtain an adequate education."[219] The governor also said that the legislation "singles out a geographic location or locations for either favorable or disadvantageous treatment" in reference to its pilot program requirement for Louisville and Northern Kentucky.[219]
Proponents of SB83 said that it would protect fairness and equality in women's interscholastic sports. State Sen. Robby Mills (R), one of the bill's co-sponsors, called the bill "a huge win for the integrity of women's sports," claiming that the bill helped Kentucky be "a leading voice for female athletes across the nation."[220] State Sen. Max Wise, another co-sponsor, speaking to Beshear's veto of the bill, said that "a Governor who thinks that decades of females fighting for sports equality & replaced by transgender competition is not tuned into the people of the Commonwealth."[221]
Beshear's veto message of SB83 claimed that the bill unfairly discriminated against students on the basis of gender identity. The governor argued that SB83 overrode the Kentucky High School Athletics Association's existing policies, "inserting the General Assembly into our schools and imposing a complete ban on transgender children to compete in girls' sports.[222] Beshear also said that the bill "most likely violates the equal protection rights afforded by the United States Constitution," and that the bill "bans transgender children from participating in girls' or women's sports without presenting a single instance in Kentucky of a child gaining a competitive advantage as a result of sex reassignment."[222]
Beshear vetoed SB83 on April 6, 2022, HB9 on April 7, 2022, and HB3 on April 8, 2022. In Kentucky, a majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate. The votes on the three bills were part of a set of 22 successful veto overrides on the second-to-last day of the state's 2022 legislative session.[223]
On HB3, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 76-21. Democratic Reps. Angie Hatton and Ashley Tackett Laferty joined 74 Republicans in voting in favor.[224] All votes against the measure came from Democrats. The Senate overrode the veto later that day by a vote of 31-6. Democratic State Sens. Dennis Parrett and Robin Webb joined 29 Republicans in voting in favor of the veto. All votes against came from Democrats.[224]
On HB9, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 52-45. All votes in favor came from Republicans.[225] Twenty-two Republicans joined 24 Democrats in voting against. The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 22-15, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans.[225] Seven Republicans joined eight Democrats in voting against.
On SB83, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 72-23. Democratic Reps. Angie Hatton and Ashley Tackett Laferty joined 70 Republicans in voting in favor.[226] Republican Rep. Killian Timoney joined 22 Democrats in voting against the veto. The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 29-8, with Democratic State Sens. Dennis Parrett and Robin Webb joining 27 Republicans in voting in favor. Republican State Sens. Alice Kerr and Wil Schroder joined six Democrats in voting against.[226]
Louisiana
Republican-controlled legislature overrides Gov. John Bel Edwards' (D) veto of redistricting maps
On March. 30, 2022, the Louisiana State Legislature overrode Gov. John Bel Edwards' veto of a bill creating new boundaries for the state's six congressional districts. House Bill 1 (HB1) was part of the state legislature's first extraordinary session of 2022 and drew new lines for Louisiana's congressional map as part of redistricting in Louisiana following the 2020 United States Census.
Supporters of the bill said that it complied with regulations and accurately represented the demographics of Louisiana. House Speaker Clay Schexnayder (R), the bill's sponsor, issued a statement after the override, claiming that HB1 "fulfills our constitutionally mandated duty to redistrict congress," and "shows true legislative independence and a clear separation of power from the executive branch."[227] State Sen. Sharon Hewitt (R), chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee, claimed that the bill "complies with the Voting Rights Act, and all federal and state legal requirements."[228][229]
Edwards' veto message argued that HB1 did not fairly represent the state, specifically claiming an underrepresentation of its black population. The governor said:
| “ | Today, after careful consideration, review, discussion with legislators, and consultation with voting rights experts, I have vetoed the proposed congressional map drawn by Louisiana’s Legislature because it does not include a second majority African American district, despite Black voters making up almost a third of Louisianans per the latest U.S. Census data. This map is simply not fair to the people of Louisiana and does not meet the standards set forth in the federal Voting Rights Act. The Legislature should immediately begin the work of drawing a map that ensures Black voices can be properly heard in the voting booth. It can be done and it should be done. .[230][26] | ” |
Edwards vetoed the bill on March 9, 2022. In Louisiana, a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had a veto-proof majority in the Senate, but were two seats short of the 70 needed to form a veto-proof majority in the House. Because the bill was vetoed after the special session had adjourned, an automatic veto session was called for the legislature to vote on an override.
The House overrode the veto by a vote of 72-31, with all Republicans and the chamber's three Independents, Reps. Roy Adams, Malinda White, and Joseph Marino, voting in favor.[231] All votes against the override came from Democrats. The Senate overrode the veto later that day by a vote of 27-11, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans and all votes against coming from Democrats.[232]
The veto override represented the first time since 1991 that the Louisiana State Legislature overturned a governor's veto against the governor's will.[233]
Maryland
Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) vetoes of 11 bills
On April 9, 2022, the Maryland General Assembly overrode 11 vetoes made by Gov. Larry Hogan (R). The vetoes were for the following bills:
HB90 allowed collective bargaining agreements for lawyers at the Maryland Office of the Public Defender and required that a cause be given in order to fire or discipline a public defender.[234] The bill's sponsor, Del. Shaneka Henson (D), claimed that collective bargaining was necessary to empower public defenders in the state. In a statement after the veto, she said that "an attorney's primary responsibility should always be to their client, not an appointed official."[235]
HB580 allowed collective bargaining agreements for sergeants and supervisors of the Maryland Transit Administration Police.[234]
Speaking to his veto of both HB90 and HB580, Hogan said that "these pieces of legislation seek to alter labor practices that have worked for decades, while creating several burdensome fiscal an operational hardships."[236]
HB609 required that a written explanation and opportunity for a hearing be provided by the Maryland Secretary of Health if a local health officer is fired.[234] Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D), the bill's sponsor, said that the bill worked "to protect our public health officials from undue political influence," and that "it is imperative that we guide our policy by science."[237] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill "creates dangerous precedent and significantly undermines the voters and the Maryland Constitution, which entrusts the executive branch with making appointments to critical government roles."[236]
HB778 and SB514 required that the Maryland Transit Administration make investments in the Maryland Area Regional Commuter Cornerstone Plan and other commuter train improvements.[238] Del. Jared Solomon (D), HB778's lead sponsor, said that the bill was a response to the "once-in-a-generation opportunity to access billions of dollars at the federal level," and that it "very specifically mandates actual investments."[239] In his veto message, Hogan said that, while he was "supportive of the intent of this legislation to improve transit," he did not see the bill as improving transit "in a fiscally responsible manner and in one that does not limit the MDOT's ability to adapt to evolving conditions."[236]
HB937, or the Abortion Care Access Act, enabled nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform abortions and required that private insurance plans that are not exempt cover abortions without cost-sharing or deductibles as well as providing $3.5 million to train health care professionals for reproductive services. [238] Del. Ariana Kelly (D), the bill's lead sponsor, said that "the strategies that this bill is using is ensuring that people can access the care that they need, when they need it, no matter what happens with the rest of the country — no matter what happens with the Supreme Court."[240] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill "endangers the health and lives of women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions," and that "these procedures are complex and can, and often do, result in significant medical complications that require the care of a licensed physician."[234]
HB1021 required alarm systems and other safety measures in businesses that sell firearms.[234] Maryland House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D), the bill's sponsor, said that its intent was to keep "firearms out of the hands of criminals," and that "the measures have proven to be a success" when implemented on a local level.[241] In his veto message, Hogan said that "this legislation was fast-tracked in the Senate, where there was essentially no opportunity for the public to weigh in, and reasonable amendments that would have made the bill more palatable for the industry and stakeholders were essentially ignored and discarded without meaningful consideration."[236]
SB1 allowed Maryland Department of Labor's commissioner of labor and industry to issue stop work orders to contractors and subcontractors that may have violated the state's prevailing wage law.[234] State Sen. Pamela Beidle (D), the bill's lead sponsor, claimed that the bill addressed the 887 violations in fiscal year 2021 and 1,394 in 2020.[242] Hogan said that the bill "may negatively impact the prevailing wage system, make contractors less likely to want to perform prevailing wage work, and could result in less competition and increased pricing on public works projects" in his veto message.[236]
SB53 prohibited law enforcement officers from conducting custodial interrogation of a child without first allowing the child to consult with an attorney.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many Sen. Jill Carter (D), the bill's sponsor, called it “a giant step in the direction of protecting all of our children,” and claimed that it children did not fully understand their rights and may be susceptible to false confessions.[243] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill "fails to strike an appropriate balance that protects the youth and public safety of the state."[236]
SB259 expanded prevailing wage requirements for state-funded service contracts for mechanical services.[234] In his veto message, Hogan said that "by making public work projects more expensive, job opportunities will decrease as less projects are funded; competition will falter as smaller firms are deterred from bidding on State contracts; and ultimately, taxpayers will end up paying more while receiving less."[236]
SB275, or the Time to Care Act of 2022, offered 12 weeks of partially paid family leave per year to provide care to themselves or a sick relative and 24 weeks of paid leave for new parents.[234] Sen. Antonio Hayes (D), the bill's lead sponsor, said that the bill was "really in support of many Maryland families who just gave birth to a child or served as a caregiver."[242] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill defined the category of small business too narrowly and claimed that it "is backed by no actuarial analysis, no viable plan for implementation, and leaves the smallest of small businesses vulnerable to insurmountable regulatory burdens."[236]
Hogan vetoed the bills on April 8, 2022. In Maryland, a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.
The table below shows the votes to override Hogan's vetoes broken down by chamber. At the time of the overrides, Democrats held 99 seats in the House and Republicans held 42. In the Senate, Democrats held 32 seats to Republicans' 15.
| Veto override votes in the Maryland General Assembly, April 9, 2022 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bill | House | Senate | |||||||||
| House Bill 90 | 97-41 | 31-14 | |||||||||
| House Bill 580 | 98-40 | 31-14 | |||||||||
| House Bill 609 | 97-41 | 30-13 | |||||||||
| House Bill 778 | 103-30 | 30-13 | |||||||||
| House Bill 937 | 90-46 | 29-15 | |||||||||
| House Bill 1021 | 97-40 | 29-13 | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 1 | 97-41 | 31-15 | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 53 | 93-44 | 30-16 | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 259 | 96-41 | 31-15 | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 275 | 94-44 | 30-16 | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 514 | 104-31 | 31-15 | |||||||||
Massachusetts
Democratic-controlled General Court overrides Gov. Charles Baker's (R) veto of bill regarding driver's license and vehicle registration applications
On June 9, 2022, the Massachusetts General Court overrode Gov. Charles D. Baker’s (R) veto of House Bill 4805 (H 4805). [244] H 4805 prohibited registrars from inquiring about an applicant’s citizenship or immigration status when applying for driver's licenses and motor vehicle registrations.[245] In lieu of citizenship or immigration information, the bill allowed registrars to accept two documents that prove the date of birth and identity of the applicant, including foreign passports, birth certificates, or consular identification documents.[246]
Proponents said that H 4805 would increase road safety, reduce hit-and-run accidents, and help families without the required citizenship or immigration information. Speaking in support, the bill's sponsor Sen. Adam Gomez (D) said:
| “ |
Allowing parents to drive their kids to school, take them to doctor's appointments or be in charge of carpooling to take their kids to soccer, all without the concern they may be separated if they are pulled over, will allow children of undocumented immigrants to breathe and have a sigh of relief.[247][26] |
” |
Opponents of the bill said, under H 4805, it would be difficult for the Registry of Motor Vehicles to verify foreign documents and that the bill would permit noncitizens to vote.[248] In his veto message, Baker said:
| “ |
a standard Massachusetts driver’s license will no longer confirm that a person is who they say they are…[and the bill] restricts the Registry’s ability to share citizenship information with those entities responsible for ensuring that only citizens register for and vote in our elections.[249][26] |
” |
Baker vetoed H 4805 on May 27, 2022. Massachusetts requires a two-thirds majority in the General Court to override a veto. At the time of the override vote, Democrats held such a majority.
In the Senate, the override passed by a 32-8 margin, with 32 Democrats voting to override and five Democrats joining all three Republicans to sustain Baker’s veto.[250] The House voted 119-36 to override the veto, with 118 Democrats and the chamber's lone independent to override and eight Democrats joining all 28 Republicans to sustain the veto.[251]
On June 13, 2022, Maureen Maloney and Kevin Dube filed paperwork to establish a committee with the goal of placing H 4805 on the November ballot as a veto referendum.[252] Learn more here.
Nebraska
Republican-controlled Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) partial veto of budget bills
On April 7, 2022, the unicameral Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' line item veto of portions of three different budget bills. The portion of LB1011 vetoed by Ricketts included $51.8 million in funding for four programs in the state's Department of Health and Human Services and two programs in the state's judicial system.[253] The portion vetoed in LB1012 moved $15 million from the Prison Overcrowding Contingency Fund to the Life Skills Programming fund and established $4.8 million for community apprenticeship and restorative justice programs.[253] The governor's line item veto of LB1012 also removed a $14 million transfer from the Governor's Emergency Cash Fund to the Cash Reserve Fund in order to help hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic; the state senate did not attempt to override this portion of the veto.[254] The line item veto of LB1013 removed $4.15 million of the $8.3 million originally dedicated to the completion of the MoPac trail bike path between Omaha and Lincoln.[253]
Supporters of the three original bills said that they were fiscally responsible uses of the state's surplus. Nebraska Speaker of the Legislature Mike Hilgers (R) claimed that the proposed budget, including the portions vetoed by the governor, would accomplish "a significant trifecta" by funding the state's priorities, allowing for the largest tax cut in state history, and leaving $1.3 billion in the state's cash reserve.[254] Speaking to the budget as a whole, Hilgers said:
| “ | I think we’ve got one of the best bean counters that the state’s ever had in Sen. (John) Stinner – he’s the chair of Appropriations. And he has both said we can cash flow the tax cut over the next several years under pretty conservative assumptions, and in addition to that we have a $1.3 billion cash reserve to help us weather any storm if those assumptions turn out not to be true.[255][26] | ” |
Ricketts' veto message argued that the portions vetoed spent too much money to allow for tax cuts. The governor said:
| “ | The budget items contained in these bills raise General Fund appropriations for FY 2022-23 by 5.9 percent. It's important that we strike the appropriate balance between calibrating government spending and returning excess revenue back to the people. That is how we responsibly steward taxpayer money. With that in-mind, I've chosen to line-item veto certain spending items that will allow tax relief to succeed.[256][26] | ” |
Ricketts submitted his line item vetoes on April 4, 2022. Nebraska is one of 44 states in which governors can veto individual line items of a legislative budget. In Nebraska, a three-fifths majority of 30 votes or more in the state's single chamber is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had a veto-proof majority in the Nebraska State Senate.
On both LB1011 and LB1012, the Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 42-3. Fifteen Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor of the overrides, with Republican State Sens. Joni Albrecht, Steve Halloran, and John Lowe voting against.[257][258]
On LB1013, the Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 41-5. Fifteen Democrats and 26 Republicans voted in favor of the override. Republican State Sens. Joni Albrecht, Steve Halloran, Curt Friesen, Steve Erdman, and John Lowe voted against it.[259]
Utah
Republican-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Spencer Cox's (R) veto of a bill prohibiting transgender student athletes from competing in interscholastic female sports
On March 25, 2022, the Utah State Legislature overrode Gov. Spencer Cox's (R) veto of a bill regulating student participation in sports. House Bill 11 (H.B. 11) prohibited transgender athletes that are designated to be of the male sex as "determined by an individual's genetics and anatomy at birth" from participating in interscholastic female sports.[260] The bill also outlined a commission to determine the eligibility of transgender athletes on a case-by-case basis in the event of court action to overturn the ban.
Supporters of the bill said that it protected the integrity of women's sports in the state. Utah State Senate leadership issued a statement soon after the veto override, including a quote from State Sen. Curt Bramble (R), the bill's Senate sponsor:
| “ | There are important biological differences between men and women. Though there are some who say transgender participation isn’t an issue in our state, we are seeing the negative repercussions in our country due to unfair advantage. We have to consider the girls who are concerned about privacy and lost opportunities to compete in a fair athletic environment. As the proud father of an elite female athlete, I believe H.B. 11 is the best way to preserve women’s sports as we navigate this difficult and sensitive issue.[261][26] | ” |
Cox's veto message claimed that the bill had undergone last-minute changes that were unnecessary and potentially harmful. The governor said that the decision to institute a ban instead of a commission to determine eligibility for athletes "was never discussed, never contemplated, never debated, and never received any public input prior to the Legislature passing the bill on the 45th and final night of the session."[262] Cox said that a commission, rather than a ban, "would attempt to both protect women's sports and allow our most vulnerable an opportunity to participate," also claiming that "rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few" in reference to what he said was "4 transgender kids playing high school sports in Utah." [262]
Cox vetoed the bill on March 22, 2022. In Utah, a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. Because the bill was vetoed after the state legislature's 2022 regular session had ended, a special session meant to address the veto was called by Cox on March 25, 2022. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.
The House overrode the veto by a vote of 56-18, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Reps. Robert Spendlove (R) and Mike Winder (R) joined 16 Democrats in voting to sustain the veto.[263] The Senate overrode the veto later that day by a vote of 21-8, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. State Sens. Todd Weiler (R) and Daniel Thatcher (R) joined 6 Democrats in voting to sustain the veto.[264]
2021
Arkansas
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Asa Hutchinson's (R) veto of a bill prohibiting gender reassignment treatments for minors
On April 6, 2021, the Arkansas General Assembly overrode Gov. Asa Hutchinson's (R) veto of House Bill 1570 (H.B. 1570), a bill prohibiting physicians and healthcare professionals from providing chemical or surgical gender reassignment treatments—including hormone therapy and puberty blockers—to individuals under the age of 18.[265] The bill also prohibits providers from referring minors elsewhere in order to receive such treatments.[266] Gender reassignment treatment, also known as gender affirming treatment, refers to the process of changing a person's body either through surgical procedures or the use of hormones to conform with their gender identity.[267]
Proponents of the bill said it would protect children and encouraged mental health services as an alternative to surgical or chemical treatment.[268][266] Senate Majority Leader Scott Flippo (R) described the prohibited treatments as "something that oftentimes could be irreversible," adding that "it is not simply too much to ask to let [children's] minds develop and mature a little bit before they make what could be a very permanent and life-changing decision."[268]
In his veto announcement, Hutchinson described H.B. 1570 as overbroad, saying the bill would create "new standards of legislative interference with physicians and parents as they deal with some of the most complex and sensitive matters involving young people. ... This would be, and is, a vast government overreach."[269] Hutchinson also repeated statements made by Arkansas medical associations, saying, "denying best medical care to transgender youth can lead to significant harm to the young person."[269]
Hutchinson vetoed H.B. 1570 on April 5, 2021. In Arkansas, a simple majority of votes is required to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held veto-proof majorities in both the state House and Senate.
In the House, 71 of the chamber's 78 Republicans voted to override the veto. Three Republicans—Reps. Craig Christiansen, Lee Johnson, and Spencer Hawks—joined 21 of the chamber's 22 Democrats in opposition. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote, resulting in a final vote of 71-24 in favor of the override.
In the Senate, 25 of the chamber's 27 Republicans voted to override the veto. All seven Democrats and one independent voted in opposition to the override. Two Republicans did not vote, resulting in a final vote of 25-8.
Hawaii
Democratic-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. David Ige's (D) veto of tourism funding bill
On July 6, 2021, the Hawaii State Legislature overrode Gov. David Ige’s (D) veto of Bill 826 (H.B. 826), which changed the funding structure of the Hawaii Tourism Agency. At the time of the veto, the agency was funded, in part, through a tax on hotel and short-term rental stays. Additionally, the state's four major counties received a share of the revenue from the tax, which was a uniform rate across the state. H.B. 826 preserved the tax but ended the tourism agency's funding arrangement with lawmakers intending to fund the agency through the state's general fund. The bill also gave the counties the ability to set and levy their own surcharges to the tax.[270]
Proponents of the bill said it prevented allocating specific funds to the benefit of one industry and promoted greater communication from the Hawaii Tourism Authority. Sen. Bennette Misalucha (D) said “It is part of the checks and balances in state government ... at the end of the day, we would like to support HTA and be their partners to support a good tourism platform. This can be possible with greater transparency and accountability."[271]
In his veto announcement, Ige said H.B. 826 would damage the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s ability to manage tourists who come to the islands. Ige said, “There really is no other state agency that is positioned to be able to identify the hotspots in every community, work with county and state, as well as private sector individuals, to really identify solutions and hopefully be able to fund them — at least on a pilot basis — so we can determine and mitigate the impact of the visitors coming here.”[272]
Ige vetoed H.B. 862 on July 6, 2021.[273] H.B. 862 was one of 26 bills he vetoed.[274] In Hawaii, a two-thirds majority is required to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats held veto-proof majorities in both the state House and Senate.
The House and Senate both voted to override the veto on July 6, 2021. In the House, 38 representatives, 37 Democrats and one Republican, voted to override the veto. Eight representatives, five Democrats and three Republicans, voted to uphold the veto. Four members, all Democrats, were excused.[275] In the Senate, 17 Senators, all Democrats, voted to override the veto. Eight Senators, seven Democrats and one Republican, voted to uphold the veto.[276]
Illinois
Democratic-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. J.B. Pritzker's (D) veto of ambulance services bill
On Aug. 31, 2021, members of the Illinois General Assembly overrode Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker’s veto of House Bill 684 (H.B. 684).[277] H.B. 684 modified the payment structure of state ambulance services by exempting them from the state’s managed care medical assistance program, a program wherein private insurance companies oversee Medicaid services. Instead, ambulances would be paid for under the state's fee-for-service program directly billing the Department of Healthcare and Family Services for non-emergency trips.[278][279]
Proponents of the bill said that the existing payment structure led private insurance companies to arbitrarily deny claims resulting in delays with payment.[279] Jackson County Ambulance Company Director Kenton Schafer said, "If we get our money in a timely basis, that allows us to pay our staff, that allows us to hire more staff, that allows us to have more staff on call, more staff on duty.”[279] Rep. Robyn Gabel (D), a sponsor of H.B. 864, said “The [managed care organizations] just were simply not paying [the EMS’] bills.”[280]
Discussing his veto, Pritzker said the bill would have disrupted patient safety and impose cost issues. Pritzker, in his veto message, said the bill “has the potential to disrupt care and reduce the quality of provided medical transportation services to some of the most vulnerable Illinoisans.”[281]
Pritzker originally vetoed the bill on Aug. 27, 2021.[277] Illinois is one of seven states that requires a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the legislature to override a veto. At the time of the veto, the Democratic Party held a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers.
The bill originally passed unanimously in both chambers and the veto was overridden unanimously in the Senate and with only one member of the House—Rep. Mary Flowers (D)—voting to uphold Pritzker's veto.[281]
This was Pritzker's first veto overridden by the state legislature since he assumed office in 2019.
Indiana
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of landlord-tenant bill
On Feb. 17, 2021, the Indiana General Assembly overrode Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of Senate Bill 148, a bill prohibiting cities from regulating the rental relationship between tenants and landlords. According to the Indianapolis Star's Kaitlin Lange, the bill was introduced after the City of Indianapolis "announced a new effort to educate tenants on their rights and take retaliatory landlords to court." Lange said that, under the bill, "cities will be prohibited from regulating most aspects of landlord-tenant relationships, essentially gutting the Indianapolis' initiatives."[282]
Senate Bill 148 was introduced during the 2020 legislative session. Holcomb vetoed the bill on March 25, 2020. In Indiana, a simple majority of votes is required to override a gubernatorial veto.
Proponents of the bill said it was intended to create a uniform, statewide set of rules. State Rep. Aaron Freeman (R) said, "throughout the state you have a hodgepodge ... of landlord-tenant zoning matters ... This bill seeks to clarify ... and standardize those and set one kind of floor for landlord-tenant issues in the state."[282]
At the time Holcomb vetoed the bill in 2020, Indiana was near the start of the coronavirus pandemic. In a 2020 letter explaining his veto, Holcomb said, "While I understand the bill was intended to create uniformity between state and local law ... I believe this is not the right time for such language to become law."[283] In 2021, following the vote to override his veto, Holcomb added, "To be sure, we are still navigating through a once-in-a-century pandemic and therefore I still believe this is not the right time for that overly broad language to have become law."[283]
At the time of the veto and of the override, Republicans controlled the Indiana State Senate and Indiana House of Representatives. The Senate voted to override the veto on Feb. 8, 2021. Thirty Republican Senators approved the override and seventeen Senators—eight Republicans and nine Democrats—voted to uphold the veto. Three Senators—two Democrats and one Republican—did not vote.[284] The House voted to override the veto on Feb. 17, 2021, with 67 Republicans supporting the override and four Republicans joining all 29 Democrats voting to uphold the veto.[285]
This was Holcomb's first veto overridden by the General Assembly since he assumed office in 2017.[282]
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of local health rules approval bill
On May 10, 2021, the Indiana General Assembly overrode Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of Senate Bill 5 (S.B. 5). Under S.B. 5, local orders addressing aspects of state executive orders may not be more strict than the state executive order unless the stricter local orders are approved by local elected officials.[286] Under previous state law, local health officers had the authority to set stricter standards than those issued through state executive orders when dealing with emergencies without prior approval.[287] Media commentary said S.B. 5 was passed in response to local health orders regarding the coronavirus pandemic that were stricter than those ordered at the state level. Holcomb issued an executive order requiring a statewide mask mandate in response to the pandemic on July 27, 2020. The order expired on April 6, 2021. According to The Associated Press' Tom Davies, S.B. 5's provisions "would include mask mandates now in place for cities including Indianapolis, South Bend, Elkhart, and Bloomington" which remained in effect following the expiration of the state executive order.[287]
Proponents of the bill said it was designed to add accountability at the local level. State Rep. Alan Morrison (R) said, "We want our officials to have to answer to the citizens ... When we're dealing with health departments that are not elected, we have to somehow figure out a way to hold them accountable and that's through our elected officials."[288]
Holcomb vetoed S.B. 5 on May 4, 2021. In his veto message, Holcomb wrote, "Critical to [Indiana's] success [in responding to the coronavirus pandemic] has been the ability during the emergency to allow local health officers (LHOs) to use localized data to tailor their actions to their community's needs." Holcomb added that he vetoed S.B. 5 because, "I believe it will undermine the successful balance described above, restrict necessary flexibility in the law, and further undermine local responses to future public health emergencies."[289] Read the full veto message here.
In Indiana, a simple majority of votes is required to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans controlled the Indiana State Senate and Indiana House of Representatives. In the Senate, 36 Republican senators voted to override the veto and ten Democratic senators voted against the override. Three Republicans and one Democrat were excused. In the House, 59 Republican representatives voted to override the veto. Three Republicans—Thomas Saunders, Harold Slager, and Cindy Meyer Ziemke—joined 27 Democrats voting against the override. Eleven representatives—nine Republicans and two Democrats—were excused.[290]
This was Holcomb's second veto overridden by the General Assembly since he assumed office in 2017.
Kentucky
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) partial veto of a bill eliminating mask requirements in public K-12 schools
On Sept. 9, 2021, the Kentucky General Assembly voted to override Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s partial veto of Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), which modified several aspects of public school district operations. The portion vetoed by Beshear eliminated mask requirements in public K-12 schools. Beshear had previously released an executive order requiring masks inside of public and private schools on Aug. 10, 2021.[291][292]
Proponents of the bill said it allowed for necessary operational flexibility in public school districts to tailor learning experiences to students. Sen. Max Wise (R), voted for the original bill, saying, “This bill will give local control back to the districts, not mandating they [do], not mandating they don’t. They make the decisions on what they feel is best for their constituents.”[293]
Beshear and other opponents of S.B. 1 said it would weaken efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 during surges. Following the override, Beshear spoke at a press conference saying, “Am I frustrated that something that has stopped every other surge we can't now use? Yes, because that's going to harm a lot of people. But is this going to stop us from figuring out every other thing we can do? No, we're going to keep pushing."[294]
S.B. 1 originally passed through the Senate with a vote of 28-8 and the House with a vote of 70-25 on Sept. 9, 2021, during the legislature’s special session. Beshear issued his partial veto the same day, with the General Assembly overriding his veto roughly an hour later.
In Kentucky, an elected majority is required to override a gubernatorial veto. In the Senate, 21 Senators, all Republicans, voted to override the veto. Six senators, five Democrats and one Republican—Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr—voted to uphold the veto. Ten senators—7 Republicans and 3 Democrats—did not vote.[295]In the House, one Democrat—Rep. Angie Hatton—joined 69 Republicans to override the veto. One Republican—Rep. Killian Timoney—joined 24 Democrats to uphold the veto. Three representatives did not vote.[296]
Maryland
Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of education funding and policy bill
On Feb. 12, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly overrode Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of House Bill 1300 (H.B. 1300), a bill implementing a ten-year education funding and policy plan developed by the Maryland Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, also known as the Kirwan Commission. According to the Associated Press' Brian Witte:[297]
| “ | The education plan focuses on five policy areas, which include expanding early childhood education such as pre-K and increasing teacher salaries. College and career readiness, aid for struggling schools and accountability in implementation also are among the main policy areas. ... While it would be phased in, the measure is estimated to cost an additional $4 billion in fiscal year 2030, with local jurisdictions contributing to state funding to pay for it.[26] | ” |
| —Associated Press, Feb. 8, 2021 | ||
Hogan vetoed the bill on May 7, 2020. In his veto letter, Hogan referenced the negative effect the coronavirus pandemic had on Maryland's economy. Hogan wrote, "The economic fallout from this pandemic simply makes it impossible to fund any new programs, impose any new tax hikes, nor adopt any legislation having any significant fiscal impact."[298] Following the General Assembly's vote to override his veto, Hogan released a video message, saying, "[H.B. 1300] will impose crippling tax hikes on Marylanders who are already struggling to recover from this unprecedented pandemic. ... It's all taxes and no results."[299]
Proponents of H.B. 1300 said the legislation would prepare Maryland's students for the future. Following the veto override, Brit Kirwan, the chair of the commission that developed the legislation, said, "desperately needed resources will now flow to the schools and children across the state, including an army of tutors, a significant expansion of community schools and preschools, greater support for teachers and much, much more."[300] Regarding the legislation's implementation costs, Senate President Bill Ferguson (D) said, "I feel very confident that we are in a very sustainable place and we are not looking for additional revenue at this point." Ferguson said the programs would be funded through at least Fiscal Year 2026 with additional funding possible through other means such as tobacco tax increases and a tax on digital services such as streaming among others.[301]
The Maryland State Senate voted to override the veto along party lines with all 15 Republicans voting against the override and 31 Democrats voting in favor. One Democrat, Joanne Benson (D) was absent.[302] The Maryland House of Delegates also voted to override the veto along party lines with 38 Republicans voting against the override and 97 Democrats voting in favor. Four Republicans and one Democrat were absent and one seat was vacant at the time of the vote.[303]
At the time of the veto override, Maryland was one of four states where one party held a veto-proof majority in the legislature and the opposing party controlled the governorship.
Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) vetoes of four criminal justice and law enforcement bills
On April 10, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly overrode four of Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) vetoes regarding the following series of criminal justice and law enforcement bills:
- Senate Bill 71 (S.B. 71): mandating body-camera use for on-duty law enforcement officers by 2025, establishing systems to identify officers at risk of using excessive force, providing responses to reduce such risk, and developing a statewide use-of-force policy.
- Senate Bill 178 (S.B. 178): changing regulations and requirements for the execution of no-knock search warrants and altering public records laws to allow certain law enforcement officer misconduct records to be reviewable by the public.
- Senate Bill 494 (S.B. 494): prohibiting life sentences for minors and altering state law regarding sentencing guidelines and remedies for individuals convicted as an adult for offenses committed as a minor.
- House Bill 670 (H.B. 670): repealing the "Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights," prohibiting officers from preventing citizens from recording their actions, and requiring each county to establish its own police accountability board.
Hogan vetoed S.B. 494 on April 8, 2021. In his veto letter, Hogan opposed the bill because he said that it could contribute to re-traumatization of victims, that it was partly duplicative, and that it could lead to the potential release of dangerous individuals.[304] Hogan wrote:
| “ | I am ... a firm believer in second chances and understand that individuals who commit serious crimes, especially as juveniles, are capable of rehabilitation. ... Senate Bill 494, however, pertains to juveniles who have committed crimes so heinous that they are automatically charged as adults ... which is why a judge or jury sentences the individual to a lengthy determinate sentence, life imprisonment, or life imprisonment without parole.[304][26] | ” |
Sen. Chris West (R), a proponent, said, "This bill carefully protects the interests of both the state and the victim," saying that any sentence reduction would require a hearing where the state would be represented by the State's Attorney and the victim or his or her representative would be provided the opportunity to testify.[305] West added, "Any human being who reaches his 37th birthday is a different person than he was at the age of 17 ... Keeping someone in prison who committed a youthful crime and who has spent decades in jail but has reformed his life and is no longer a threat to society is hard to defend."[305]
Hogan vetoed the remaining three bills—S.B. 71, S.B. 178, and H.B. 670—on April 9, 2021. In his veto letter covering all three bills, Hogan said, "These bills would undermine the goal that I believe we share of building transparent, accountable, and effective law enforcement institutions and instead further erode police morale, community relationships, and public confidence." He added, "They will result in great damage to police recruitment and retention, posing significant risks to public safety throughout our state."[306]
House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D), a proponent of the bills, wrote:
| “ | Maryland is leading the country in transforming our broken policing system. ... Now, for the first time in our nation's history, the rights of officers will not be held above the rights of individuals, and policing in Maryland will be transparent and citizen-centered. ... The Maryland General Assembly is showing the nation exactly where we stand as a state - fair treatment for every person, regardless of their race, background or zip code and stronger relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve.[307][26] | ” |
The table below shows the votes to override Hogan's vetoes broken down by chamber. At the time of the overrides, Democrats held 99 seats in the House and Republicans held 42. In the Senate, Democrats held 32 seats to Republicans' 15.
| Veto override votes in the Maryland General Assembly, April 10, 2021 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bill | House | Senate | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 71 | 94-43 | 31-16 | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 178 | 90-46 | 30-17 | |||||||||
| Senate Bill 494 | 88-49 | 32-15 | |||||||||
| House Bill 670 | 95-42 | 31-16 | |||||||||
Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of Maryland's congressional redistricting map
On Dec. 9, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) veto of House Bill 1 (HB 1), the legislative plan to redistrict Maryland's eight U.S. House districts.[308] Prior to the passage of HB 1, Hogan had indicated he would veto any congressional map that differed from the map produced by the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, a group established by Gov. Hogan.[309] The commission's proposed map was not put to a vote in the General Assembly.[309] According to David Collins of WBAL-TV, "The map allows Democrats to hold seven of the state's eight congressional seats and the First District on the Eastern Shore, held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, becomes more competitive."[310]
Proponents of the congressional map said it was produced in a transparent manner and fulfilled legal obligations. Sen. Majority Leader Nancy King (D) said, "Maryland's geography is unique, and our population is varied ... Taking all that into consideration, I am confident that this map is a fair one, and one that reflects the lived experience of Marylanders."[309] Sen. Craig Zucker (D) said, “the bottom line is this was a transparent, fair process.”[311]
Hogan said the congressional maps were gerrymandered and violated federal law. In a press conference, he said, "This congressional map done in back rooms by party bosses in Annapolis makes a mockery of our democracy and it is an embarrassment to all that our state stands for," adding, "I think gerrymandering is a cancer on our democracy."[312] In his veto letter, Hogan said the congressional map "will join the maps of recent election cycles that have resulted in numerous lawsuits."[313]
Hogan vetoed HB 1 on Dec. 9, 2021. Maryland requires a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the legislature to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats held a veto-proof majority in both chambers.
In the House, 96 of the chamber's 98 Democrats voted to override Hogan's veto. One Democrat—Del. Gabriel Acevero (D)—joined 40 of the 42 Republicans to sustain Hogan's veto. The Senate voted 32-14 in favor of overriding the veto along party lines.[312]
Massachusetts
Democratic-controlled General Court overrides Gov. Charlie Baker's (R) veto of regional transit funding bill
On July 29, 2021, the Massachusetts General Court voted to override Gov. Charlie Baker’s (R) veto of Senate Bill 2277 (SB 2277), which increased funding to the Massachusetts Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) by 3.9%, from $90.5 million in 2021 to $94 million.[314] The bill also allowed future appropriations to increase with inflation.[315] Baker's line-item veto, issued on July 16, targeted only the funding increase portion of SB 2277, not the portion tying future increases to inflation.[314]
Proponents of the bill said the increase in funding was necessary to accommodate the need for public transport among Massachusetts residents. MassPIRG's John Stout said in a press release, “with $94 million in base funding, the Commonwealth will be able to build a transportation system that meets our 21st century needs.”[314] Sen. Harriette Chandler (D), the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, said, “If [Massachusetts residents] did not have an RTA and if we do not choose to invest in our RTAs, the people who rely on them will have no other option.”[316]
In his veto message, Gov. Baker said “the RTAs received approximately $214 million as part of the CARES Act, $39 million from CRRSA, and more than $165 million from ARPA … As a result, all 15 RTAs ended FY21 with significant cash reserves. Because of the significant amount of federal and state funding dispensed to RTAs recently and the continuing need to incentivize improved RTA performance, I am recommending that the distribution revert to my House 1 recommendation of $90.5 million, with $3.5 million distributed as performance grants.”[317]
Massachusetts requires a ⅔ present majority in both chambers to override a veto.
Nebraska
Republican-controlled State Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of public school retirement plan management bill
On May 26, 2021, the Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of Legislative Bill 147 (L.B. 147), which transferred management of the Omaha Public Schools (OPS) retirement plan from the OPS to the Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems (NPERS), the state's retirement system for active, inactive, and retired educators, state employees, police employees, and judges in Nebraska.[318] The bill gave NPERS management over the OPS retirement plan with a starting in 2024. The bill also specified that the NPERS would not be subject to liabilities under this arrangement.[319]
Proponents of the bill said that transferring the management of the OPS retirement fund would result in an annual management cost savings of about $250,000. According to an article in Pensions and Investments Online, State Sen. Mark Kolterman (R) said that the state would not assume financial responsibility or liability for OPS' funding shortfall.[320]
In his veto announcement, Ricketts said the bill would hold the state responsible for OPS' budget shortfall. Ricketts said, "The $848 million of unfunded liabilities in the OPS plan exceeds the significant and generous amount of nearly $790 million of property tax relief we all worked exceptionally hard to ensure will be provided for taxpayers next year. Funding the cost of taking over liability will come at the expense of increasing future property tax relief."[321]
Ricketts vetoed the bill on May 24, 2021. In Nebraska, the unicameral Senate needs 30 votes, a three-fifths majority, to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
The Senate voted to override the veto on May 26, 2021. Thirty-one Senators, all 17 Democrats and 14 Republicans, approved the override and 18 Senators, all Republicans, voted to uphold the veto.[322][323]
Republican-controlled State Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of federally funded food assistance bill
On May 26, 2021, the Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of Legislative Bill 108 (L.B. 108), which raised the income limit for federally funded food assistance from 130% of the federal poverty level to 165% of the federal poverty level for two years.[324]
Proponents of the bill argued that Nebraska residents needed the expanded assistance. State Sen. Terrell McKinney (D) said, "These people aren’t lazy. They need these resources. If you speak from a place of privilege, and you never grew up poor, have some empathy.”[325]
In his veto announcement, Ricketts said L.B. 108 could discourage unemployed Nebraska residents from returning to work following the coronavirus pandemic. Ricketts said, "small Nebraska businesses cannot hire staff, and they are struggling to stay open or re-open," adding, "We should remove any incentives that would slow reopening ... Whether intended or not, LB 108 discourages Nebraskans from returning to work."[326]
Ricketts vetoed the bill on May 24, 2021. In Nebraska, the unicameral legislature needs 30 votes, a three-fifths majority, to pass a bill over a governor's veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held veto-proof majorities in the Senate.
The Senate voted to override the veto on May 26, 2021. Thirty Senators, all 17 Democrats and 13 Republicans, approved the override and 19 Senators, all Republicans, voted to uphold the veto.[322][327]
Republican-controlled State Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of federally-funded heating assistance bill
On May 26, 2021, the Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of Legislative Bill 306 (L.B. 306), which raised the income limit for Nebraska’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) from 130% of the federal poverty level to 150%.[328] The LIHEAP, administered by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, distributes assistance to offset home energy costs in low-income households.[329]
Proponents of the bill said L.B. 306 would increase the efficiency of the heating program.[330] State Sen. Tom Brandt (R), who introduced the bill, said "LB306 will make the program more efficient by eliminating the supplemental payments away from those customers who do not need them and reallocating the funds to more people who actually need assistance."[330]
In his veto announcement, Ricketts said L.B. 306 would put the state's LIHEAP program at risk of running out of federal funding and instead said he supported temporary increases:[331]
| “ |
I will commit to using the temporary LIHEAP funding increase ... to serve those whose incomes fall between 130% - 150% of the Federal Poverty level and to provide additional weatherization assistance as is proposed in the bill. When the enhanced LIHEAP funding is no longer available, then the program eligibility would return to their current levels.[331][26] |
” |
Ricketts vetoed the bill on May 24, 2021. In Nebraska, the unicameral legislature needs 30 votes, a three-fifths majority, to pass a bill over a governor's veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held veto-proof majorities in the Senate.
The Senate voted to override the veto on May 26, 2021. Thirty-two Senators, all 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans, approved the override and 15 Senators, all Republicans, voted to uphold the veto. Two Senators, both Republicans, did not vote.[332]
2020
Kentucky
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of a voter identification bill
On April 14, 2020, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of a voter identification bill. According to The Associated Press, "The measure would require Kentucky residents to produce a photo ID when voting, with limited exceptions, starting with the November [2020] election."[333] Proponents of the bill said it would prevent voter fraud with the bill's sponsor, Sen. Robby Mills (R), saying it would add "guardrails in our voting procedures that will help cure vulnerabilities that exist."[333] According to the Courier-Journal, opponents said the bill "would create an unnecessary barrier to voting ... pointing out that there is no documented case of voter fraud through impersonation in Kentucky."[334]
Beshear vetoed the bill on April 3, 2020. In his veto message, he said, "the provisions of the law would create an obstacle to the ability of Kentuckians to exercise their right to vote."[335] He also cited the coronavirus pandemic saying the bill "would also likely threaten the health and safety of Kentuckians by requiring them to obtain identification during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic."[335]
Mills, responding to Beshear's objections, said, "I am sure we will have those clerks' offices open and doing business later in the spring or summer ... And there's going to be ample opportunities for folks that do not have a valid photo ID to obtain that free photo ID that is allowed in this piece of legislation."[333]
Following the 2019 elections, Kentucky was one of four states where one party held veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and an opposing party controls the governor's office.
Massachusetts
Democratic-controlled General Court overrides Gov. Charlie Baker's (R) veto of abortion bill
- See also: Abortion regulations by state
On Dec. 29, 2020, the Massachusetts General Court overrode Gov. Charlie Baker's (R) veto of a bill concerning abortion regulations. House Bill 5179 (H.B. 5179), also known as the ROE Act, codified the right to an abortion in state law, expanded abortion access to pregnancies after 24 weeks in certain cases, and lowered the age of consent for abortion to 16.[336]
Proponents of H.B. 5179 said the bill was necessary to protect the right to an abortion. Senate President Harriette Chandler (D), speaking before the veto, said that the bill "ensures that the choice of an abortion is between a patient and their doctor."[337] House Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D), a co-sponsor, said, "it's proper to do that and to push back against restrictions," after "an anti-choice jurist [was] placed on the Supreme Court," referring to H.B. 5179 and the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020.[338]
In his veto message, Baker said he opposed H.B. 5179's expansion of abortion access to some minors and certain later-term pregnancies. The governor said:
| “ | I cannot support the sections of this proposal that expand the availability of later-term abortions and permit minors age 16 and 17 to get an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian. I, therefore, again urge the Legislature to enact the compromise version of the bill that would affirmatively protect a women's right to access an abortion, but would restore the existing framework around late-term abortions and parental consent.[339][26] | ” |
Baker vetoed H.B. 5179 on Dec. 24, 2020. In Massachusetts, a two-thirds vote by members present in both chambers is required to overturn a veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.
The House overrode the veto by a vote of 107-46 on Dec. 28, 2020. Reps. James Kelcourse (R) and Susannah Whipps (I) joined 105 Democrats in voting in favor.[340] Sixteen Democratic Reps joined 30 Republicans in voting against the measure.[340] The Senate overrode the veto the next day by a vote of 32-8. All votes in favor came from Democrats, with Democratic State Sens. Nick Collins, Michael Rush, Walter Timilty, and John Velis joining the chamber's three Republicans in voting against.[341]
Mississippi
Republican-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Tate Reeve's (R) partial veto of education appropriation bill
On August 10, 2020, the Mississippi State Legislature overrode Gov. Tate Reeves' (R) July 8 partial veto of the annual education appropriations bill, House Bill 1700. This was the first time since 2002 that the Mississippi State Legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto. H.B. 1700 provided education funding for the 2021 fiscal year.[342]
As passed in the House, H.B. 1700 included an appropriation of roughly $25 million to the state's School Recognition Program, which was designed to provide bonuses to teachers in schools with high annual accountability grades or those whose grades improved a letter grade.[343][344] The final version of the bill removed the $25 million appropriation, which instead went towards defraying costs of the Mississippi Adequate Education Program, a formula used to provide funding to improve school districts' accountability grades regardless of their geographic locations.[345] Reeves partially vetoed the portion of the bill that removed the $25 million appropriation.
In his veto message, Reeves said, "the partial veto is necessary to ensure that adequate funds are available to pay 23,157 of Mississippi's best and brightest teachers the money owed to them under the School Recognition Program. In the absence of this partial veto, these teachers will be forced to take a pay cut."[344]
According to The Associated Press' Emily Wagster Pettus, "House and Senate leaders said the omission of the bonus funding was an oversight and the governor's veto was unnecessary because they intended to fund the program in a few months, in time for teachers to receive the extra pay."[342]
A two-thirds vote from both chambers of the legislature was required to override the partial veto. The House approved the override with a 109-17 vote and the Senate did so with a 41-1 vote. Also on Aug. 10, the House and Senate passed a separate bill to provide funding to the School Recognition Program.[342]
Oklahoma
Republican-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Kevin Stitt's (R) veto of the state's general appropriations bill
On May 13, 2020, the Oklahoma State Legislature overrode Gov. Kevin Stitt's (R) veto of the general appropriations bill for the 2021 fiscal year, Senate Bill 1922. S.B. 1922 represented a three percent cut from the 2020 budget with an appropriation of $7.7 billion to state agencies.[346] According to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, "most agencies will have their appropriation reduced by around 4 percent under the plan, although school funding is cut by a smaller amount and a handful of agency budgets saw budget increases."[346]
A central issue in Stitt's veto stemmed from the use of one-time sources such as savings and redirected funds in order to address a projected $1.3 billion budget shortfall.[346] Stitt had previously indicated he believed the shortfall should have been met with greater spending cuts than what was included in S.B. 1922.[347] In his veto message, Stitt said the bill was "propped up with one-time funds that will not be available for Fiscal Year 2022 ... which leaves us with very few options in FY 2022 – we will either have to raise taxes or implement draconian cuts."[348]
Oklahoma law required a two-thirds vote in both chambers in order to override the veto. The House voted 79-20 to override the veto. Two Democrats—Reps. Meloyde Blancett and Ben Loring—joined all 77 Republicans in supporting the veto override. Rep. Jason Lowe (D) was excused. The remaining 20 Democrats voted against the override.[349] The Senate voted 35-11 to override the veto. All 35 votes in favor of the override came from Republican senators. Two Republicans—Sens. Nathan Dahm and Joseph Silk—joined the nine Senate Democrats to oppose the veto. Sen. Chris Kidd (R) was excused.[350]
In total, 112 of the 115 Republican legislators supported the veto override, several of whom publicly disagreed with the governor's veto message. Senate Appropriations Chairman Roger Thompson (R) said, "Senate Bill 1922 represents our constituents and the core values of Oklahoma." Sen. Tom J. Dugger (R) wrote that "the governor called for deep, painful cuts to schools, health care, public safety and other vital services." He referred to the efforts to address the budget shortfall as "temporary adjustments [that] made it possible for us to protect education and the critical investments we've made on behalf of teachers and students."[351]
29 of the 33 Democratic legislators opposed the veto override. Senate Minority Leader Kay Floyd (D) released a statement saying, "[Senate Democrats] remain concerned the budget as passed by the Legislature already includes too many cuts to core services." Floyd added, "We disagree with the Governor's stated justification for the veto, which is that he believes the budget should include more cuts."[352] House Minority Leader Emily Virgin (D) said, “Oklahoma Democrats have been vocal for years about the need to diversify state revenue streams and we will continue to call for stable, recurring revenue that can support public education and other core services without relying on one-time funds and taking money from pension systems.”[346]
At the time of the vote, Oklahoma was one of 21 Republican state government trifectas, meaning Republicans controlled both chambers of the legislature as well as the governorship.
In addition to S.B. 1922, members of the legislature voted to override Stitt's vetoes of three other budget-related bills: House Bills 2741, 2742, and 2743.
Vermont
Democratic-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of climate change legislation
On Sept. 22, 2020, the Vermont State Senate overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of H. 688, an act addressing climate change, with a 22-8 vote. The Vermont House of Representatives voted to override Scott's veto on Sept. 17 with a 103-47 vote. H. 688 set new carbon emission reduction targets and a new council tasked with developing the plans to reach those targets.[353] According to the General Assembly's act summary:
| “ | This act requires reductions in Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) tied to three time periods: 2025, 2030, and 2050. This act also creates a Climate Council that is required to develop a Climate Action Plan that sets forth the proposed programs and strategies to meet these reductions and to build resilience to the impacts of climate change, requires the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to adopt rules consistent with the Plan, and provides for a cause of action if the Agency fails to engage in rulemaking or adopts rules that fail to achieve the required emissions reductions.[26] | ” |
| —Vermont General Assembly's Office of Legislative Council Hover over years for details added by Ballotpedia. | ||
Scott opposed the provision of the act that allowed the state to be sued if it fails to meet the carbon emission reduction targets.[354] He also opposed the form and function of the Vermont Climate Council, saying it "presents an unconstitutional separation of powers issue" and that he opposed "the absence of a process ensuring the Legislature would formally vote on the Vermont Climate Action Plan" developed by the council.[354] In his veto message, Scott wrote:
| “ | This, put simply, is poorly crafted legislation that would lead to bad government and expensive delays and lawsuits that would impair – not support – our emissions reductions goals. And it is unconstitutional – with the Legislature ignoring its duty to craft policy and enact actual global warming solutions on one hand and unconstitutionally usurping the Executive Branch role to execute the laws on the other.[26] | ” |
| —Gov. Phil Scott | ||
During the House motion to override Scott's veto, Rep. Tim Briglin (D), the bill's co-sponsor, said legislators added the provision allowing the state to be sued for failing to meet the reduction requirements in response to a similar action under a climate change bill passed in Massachusetts, which lacked the lawsuit provision. The Bennington Banner's Greg Sukiennik, wrote that Briglin included the lawsuit provision "because it's 'focused and narrowing' in limiting lawsuits to the state's failure to meet deadlines and measurable targets."[355]
Speaking in response to questions about the form and function of the Vermont Climate Council, Rep. Laura Sibilia (I), vice-chair of the House Committee on Energy and Technology, said, "This bill brings technical and relevant people together to create a plan. That plan is going to require rulemaking, it's going to require public process, it's going to require funding if we are going to implement it."[356]
2017
Kansas
Republican-controlled Legislature overrides Gov. Sam Brownback's (R) veto of a tax increase amid internal conflict
On June 6, 2017, the Kansas legislature overrode Gov. Sam Brownback's (R) veto of legislation that repealed tax cuts Brownback had signed in 2012. Legislators' successful override came after several months of intra-party and inter-party conflict within the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature. Moderate Republicans wanted to rollback the tax cuts to address an $887 million revenue shortfall in Kansas’ budget over two years and to respond to a state Supreme Court ruling in March 2017 that state funding for K-12 education had failed to meet constitutional requirements. Conservative Republicans aligned with Brownback argued that a rollback would amount to a tax hike and hurt the economy. Democrats supported repealing the tax cuts but, in some cases, voted alongside conservatives because they felt that additional tax revenue beyond a repeal of the tax cuts was needed or because of attached legislation related to school funding. Eventually the lines between these factions blurred enough to pass legislation on the tax cuts and to override Brownback’s veto.
The 2012 tax cuts reduced the state’s income tax brackets from three to two. The original rates were 6.5 percent, 6.25 percent, and 3.5 percent, depending on an individual’s annual income. The 2012 legislation dropped those rates to 4.9 and 3 percent. It also established state income tax exemptions for more than 300,000 farmers and business owners throughout Kansas.
On June 5, the House voted 69-52 to remove the tax exemptions, bring back a third tax bracket, and raise income tax rates (5.7, 5.25, and 3.1). The Senate voted for the bill 26-14. The bill was expected to generate $1.2 billion in revenue over two years. Brownback immediately stated his intentions to veto the bill, saying, “Senate Bill 30 is a $1.2 billion tax hike, making it the largest in state history. This is bad for Kansas and bad for the many Kansans who would have more of their hard-earned money taken from them.” Following Brownback’s veto, the Legislature voted in favor of an override: 88-31 in the House and 27-13 in the Senate. Included among the yes votes for the override were eight House Republicans and six Senate Republicans who unseated Republican lawmakers aligned with Brownback in the 2016 primary elections.
In February 2017, the Legislature passed a similar bill to rollback the tax cuts, but Brownback vetoed it. In response, the House voted 85-40 to override the veto. The Senate voted 24-16 to override Brownback, which was three votes shy of the 27 needed for the override to pass.
Following the 2016 elections, Kansas was one of 25 Republican state government trifectas. Republicans had an 85-40 majority in the House and a 31-9 majority in the Senate. Two-thirds of members in both chambers must vote to override a veto, which is 84 of the 125 members in the Kansas House of Representatives and 27 of the 40 members in the Kansas State Senate.
Idaho
Republican legislators challenge Gov. Butch Otter's (R) post-adjournment veto of a repeal of the state's grocery tax
On July 18, 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a 4-1 ruling in Nate v. Denney upholding Gov. Butch Otter's veto of a repeal of the statewide grocery tax passed by the Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature in the waning days of the 2017 legislative session. The case considered the parameters of the governor's power to issue post-adjournment vetoes. Otter issued his veto after the Legislature adjourned and, because the Idaho Constitution does not allow legislators to call for a special session to override vetoes, the veto was permanent.
The grocery tax repeal passed the state House 51-19 and the state Senate 25-10. Both vote margins exceeded the two-thirds threshold needed to override gubernatorial vetoes in Idaho, which is 47 of the 70 members in the Idaho House of Representatives and 24 of the 35 members in the Idaho State Senate if all members are in attendance. Following the 2016 elections, Republicans had a 29-6 advantage in the state Senate and a 59-11 advantage in the state House.
The grocery tax repeal veto was challenged by 30 Republican lawmakers via a petition for a writ of mandamus, a judicial order which compels a government official to take a particular action. The legislators who filed the petition said that Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) acted improperly when he accepted the veto because Otter issued it more than 10 days after the Legislature adjourned.
The Idaho Constitution establishes a 10-day deadline for signing bills after the Legislature adjourns before they automatically become law. However, in the 1978 case Cenarrusa v. Andrus, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the 10-day period should start when the governor receives the bill from the Legislature, not when the Legislature adjourns. This was to prevent the Legislature from withholding bills from the governor until the end of the 10-day period. In the case of the grocery tax repeal, Otter vetoed the bill more than 10 days after the legislature adjourned, but less than 10 days from when he received it from the Legislature, thus acting in compliance with the Cenarrusa decision.
In the majority opinion denying the writ of mandamus, Justice Daniel Eismann ruled that the governor has only 10 days after adjournment to sign bills, therefore overturning Cenarrusa. However, he also wrote that the Legislature must present all bills to the governor upon adjournment, meaning both the presentment of the grocery tax repeal by the Legislature and Otter’s veto were unconstitutional. The ruling was not applied retroactively, so previous vetoes that came after the 10-day deadline could not be challenged in court.
As of 2015, Idaho was one of 13 states where groceries were not exempt from a statewide sales tax.
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.[357][358][359] 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.[360]
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.[361] 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.[362] 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.[363][364][365]
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.[366]
On August 28, the Illinois House rejected the agreement in a 46-61 vote.[367] 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.[368] On August 29, the Illinois Senate passed the compromise bill by a 38-13 vote. Gov. Rauner said he would sign the bill.[369]
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.
North Carolina
Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides four vetoes issued by Gov. Roy Cooper (D)
From March 23, 2017, to June 28, 2017, the General Assembly of North Carolina overrode four vetoes issued by Gov. Roy Cooper (D). The vetoes were related to conflict between the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Cooper following the 2016 elections where Cooper defeated incumbent Pat McCrory (R) in a close race. McCrory did not concede the race until almost a month after the election. He requested a recount since unofficial vote totals had him within 10,000 votes of Cooper. Despite Cooper's victory, Republicans won a 35-15 majority in the North Carolina State Senate and a 74-46 majority in the North Carolina House of Representatives, giving them the three-fifths majority needed in each chamber to override gubernatorial vetoes.
Before Cooper was sworn in, the General Assembly began passing legislation that Democrats argued was intended to curtail the governor's power. The General Assembly continued passing such legislation after Cooper was sworn in on January 1, 2017. Legislation included, for example, efforts to restructure the state board of elections, to require Senate approval of cabinet-level appointments, and to decrease the number of governor-appointed judges on the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Cooper's veto was overridden on four key bills: HB 100, HB 239, SB 68, and SB 257.
- HB 100 made Superior Court and District Court judicial elections partisan. It was passed on March 8. Cooper vetoed it on March 16 and was overridden on March 23.
- HB 239 reduced the number of judges on the appellate bench from 15 to 12. It also prohibited Cooper from filling the next three vacancies on the court and required them to go unfilled. It was passed on April 11. Cooper vetoed it on April 21 and was overridden on April 26.
- SB 68 changed the appointment procedures for members of the state elections board, allowing the governor to make appointments to an eight-member board based on lists submitted by Democratic and Republican state party chairs. Under previous law, the state elections board had five members, all appointed by the governor. It also required that a Republican chair the board in years with presidential and gubernatorial elections and a Democrat chair it during midterm elections, and it merged the board with the State Ethics Commission. It was passed on April 11. Cooper vetoed it on April 21 and was overridden on April 25.
- SB 257 was the state budget. It included decreases in the state’s personal income tax rate from 5.49 percent to 5.25 percent and a decrease in the corporate income tax rate from 3 percent to 2.5 percent. It also provided for a 3.3 percent salary increase, on average, for teachers and a $1,000 raise for other state employees. It included a provision limiting Cooper's ability to hire private lawyers to challenge bills passed by the General Assembly and transferred the state Industrial Commission, which was under control of an agency in Cooper's cabinet, to the State Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey (R). It was passed on June 21. Cooper vetoed it on June 27 and was overridden on June 28.
See also
- State government trifectas
- Partisan composition of state legislatures
- Partisan composition of state senates
- Partisan composition of state houses
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Even though Nebraska has a unicameral state legislature, it is included in this figure.
- ↑ Iowa lost its Republican supermajority after Senate District 1 changed party control in an Aug. 26, 2025, special election
- ↑ One party needs to control 40 of the 60 seats across both chambers to have a veto-proof majority in the legislature.
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Spokesman.com "Grocery tax repeal veto prompts debate in Idaho over powers of Legislature, governor," April 23, 2017
- ↑ Delaware State News, "Delaware legislators to attempt override of opt-out veto," January 13, 2016
- ↑ The Orlando Sentinel "Gov. Rick Scott's veto power: Tallahassee takeaways," May 18, 2017
- ↑ 11 Alive, "Lawmakers: No special session for veto override, please," March 31, 2016
- ↑ Indianapolis Business Journal, "Indiana Senate votes to override two Pence vetoes," February 14, 2017
- ↑ NewsOK, "Iowa lawmakers ponder a special session," May 19, 2013
- ↑ The Baltimore Sun, "Hogan vetoes Maryland Democrats' paid sick leave bill," May 25, 2017
- ↑ Mississippi First, "Governor Bryant Vetoes SB 2161," April 24, 2015
- ↑ Nevada Legislature, "Vetoes and Special Sessions," accessed July 3, 2017
- ↑ Newmexicopolitics.net "New Mexico’s veto problem," June 26, 2017
- ↑ The Oregon Legislature, "How an Idea Really Becomes a Law," accessed July 3, 2017
- ↑ Pennsylvania Code, "§ 9.127. Passage of vetoed bill.," accessed July 3, 2017
- ↑ The News & Observer "Special veto session unlikely for South Carolina Legislature," July 1, 2017
- ↑ TN Report, "Veto-Override Session May be in Works," March 21, 2014
- ↑ Vermont Secretary of State, "Pocket Veto," accessed July 3, 2017
- ↑ Watson, Richard. Origins and Early Development of the Veto Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol.17, no.2 (1987): 401-412.
- ↑ The Washington Post, "President Obama’s recent vetoes were unconstitutional. Congress should sue him.," December 30, 2015
- ↑ Moncrief, G. & Squire, P. (2010). "State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes". United States. Pearson Education. (184)
- ↑ Alaska State LEgislature, "HB 57," accessed May 29, 2025
- ↑ Facbook, "Governor Mike Dunleavy on May 19, 2025," accessed May 29, 2025
- ↑ 26.00 26.01 26.02 26.03 26.04 26.05 26.06 26.07 26.08 26.09 26.10 26.11 26.12 26.13 26.14 26.15 26.16 26.17 26.18 26.19 26.20 26.21 26.22 26.23 26.24 26.25 26.26 26.27 26.28 26.29 26.30 26.31 26.32 26.33 26.34 26.35 26.36 26.37 26.38 26.39 26.40 26.41 26.42 26.43 26.44 26.45 26.46 26.47 26.48 26.49 26.50 26.51 26.52 26.53 26.54 26.55 26.56 26.57 26.58 26.59 26.60 26.61 26.62 26.63 26.64 26.65 26.66 26.67 26.68 26.69 26.70 26.71 26.72 26.73 26.74 26.75 26.76 26.77 26.78 26.79 26.80 26.81 26.82 26.83 26.84 26.85 26.86 26.87 26.88 26.89 26.90 26.91 26.92 26.93 26.94 26.95 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 Juneau Empire, "Legislature overrides governor’s education veto in moment of ‘courage’," May 20, 2025
- ↑ A portion of 46(a), 46(c), 47, 63(x), 72(b), 73(f), a portion of 76(a), a portion of 76(b), a portion of 83(a), a portion of 89(a), 89(aa), a portion of 92(a), 118(h), 118(i), a portion of 121(a), 135(a), 177(b), 187(h), 188 were overridden.
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 Kansas Office of the Governor, "Governor Kelly Vetoes Seven Bills, Allows Three to Become Law Without Signature," April 9, 2025
- ↑ X, "Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson on April 10, 2025," accessed May 14, 2025
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 The Kansas Legislature, "SB 4," accessed April 9, 2025 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "bill" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "bill" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ X, "Kansas Speaker of the House Dan Hawkins on March 25, 2025," accessed April 9, 2025
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Governor Kelly Vetoes Restrictive Voting Legislation," March 24, 2025
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 The Kansas Legislature, "SB 63," accessed March 14, 2025
- ↑ X, "Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson on February 18, 2025," accessed March 14, 2025
- ↑ Kansas Reflector, "Kansas Legislature overrides governor’s veto of legislation that targets trans kids," February 18, 2025
- ↑ Kentucky.gov, "Gov. Beshear Signs Bills That Move State Forward, Vetoes Those That Harm Workers and Violate State Laws," March 24, 2025
- ↑ Kentucky.gov, "Gov. Beshear Provides Team Kentucky Update," March 27, 2025
- ↑ Kentucky Senate Republicans, "Press Releases," March 28, 2025
- ↑ Executive Office of Governor Ron DeSantis, "Governor Ron DeSantis signs fiscal year 2024-2025 'Focus on Florida's Future' budget," June 12, 2024
- ↑ 41.0 41.1 Florida Politics, "Legislature restores $56M+ in support services vetoed by Gov. DeSantis, " January 27, 2025
- ↑ PBS News, "Florida Republicans defied DeSantis over an immigration bill. Is his grip on state lawmakers loosening?" January 28, 2025
- ↑ Executive Office of Governor Ron DeSantis, "General Appropriations Letter," June 12, 2024
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 New York Times, "N.C. Republicans Push Through Contested Agenda on ‘Veto Override Day’," July 29, 2025
- ↑ NC Health News, "Lawmakers override Gov. Stein’s vetoes of bills that have health policy implications," accessed July 30, 2025
- ↑ The Carolina Journal, "State legislature to return July 29 for veto override votes," July 22, 2025
- ↑ 47.0 47.1 KFOR, "Oklahoma lawmakers override record number of vetoes, remove Stitt appointee in dramatic end to legislative session," May 31, 2025
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 X, "Governor Kevin Stitt on May 29, 2025," accessed June 16, 2025
- ↑ News 9, "Lawmakers move to override record number of vetoes as session nears end," May 29, 2025
- ↑ Oklahoma Voice, "Oklahoma lawmakers overturn vetoes on dozens of measures, including mammograms, records transparency," May 30, 2025
- ↑ Oklahoma House of Representatives, "Veto overridden of bill to allow state funding for the Office of Liaison for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons," May 30, 2025
- ↑ Office of the Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon, "Veto Letter HB 64- Ultrasound Requirement," March 3, 2025
- ↑ 53.0 53.1 Cowboy State Daily, "Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto Of Ultrasound Abortion Bill," March 5, 2025
- ↑ BillTrack50, "WY HB0064: Votes," accessed March 19, 2025
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2749," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Reflector", "Kansas Legislature overrides governor on abortion survey bill, abortion coercion legislation, " April 29, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Governor Kelly Vetoes Bills, Allows One to Become Law Without Signature," April 12, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2749," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2648," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ KSNT", "Kansas House overrides multiple veto decisions, " April 29, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Governor Kelly Vetoes Bills, Allows One to Become Law Without Signature," April 12, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2749," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "Sub Bill for House Bill 2436," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ KSNT", "Kansas House overrides multiple veto decisions, " April 29, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Governor Kelly Vetoes Bills, Allows One to Become Law Without Signature," April 12, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "Sub Bill for House Bill 2436," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2465," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ KSNT", "Kansas House overrides multiple veto decisions, " April 29, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Governor Kelly Vetoes Bills, Allows Two to Become Law Without Signature," April 19, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2465," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2583," accessed June 18, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Governor Kelly Vetoes Bills, Allows Two to Become Law Without Signature," April 19, 2024
- ↑ KSNT", "Kansas House overrides multiple veto decisions, " April 29, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2583," accessed June 18, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2098," accessed June 18, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor, "Message from the Governor Regarding Veto of House Bill 2098," April 24, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "House Bill 2098," accessed June 18, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "Senate Bill 473," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Governor," "Governor Kelly Proposes Alternative Tax Cuts Plan, Vetoes Unsustainable Tax Bills," April 24, 2024
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature," "Senate Bill 473," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, "House Bill 622," accessed April 16, 2024
- ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "KY House GOP leader: Governor shouldn’t appoint US Senate vacancies," February 21, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 622 of the 2024 Regular Session," April 9, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky House of Representatives 2024 Regular Session, "Vote History," accessed April 16, 2024
- ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, "House Bill 44," accessed June 17, 2024.
- ↑ [https://x.com/Hodgson4KY/status/1776347626473975830' "X", "John Hodgson's tweet on April 5, 2024," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 44 of the 2024 Regular Session," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky House of Representatives 2024 Regular Session, "Vote History," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, "House Bill 5," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ WAVE 3, "Louisville lawmakers react to veto override of ‘Safer Kentucky Act’," April 13, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 5 of the 2024 Regular Session," April 9, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky House of Representatives 2024 Regular Session, "Vote History," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, "House Bill 18," accessed June 17, 2024.
- ↑ Lexington 18, "Ky. legislature overrides Gov. Beshear's veto of bill focused on changes to affordable housing," March 6, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 18 of the 2024 Regular Session," March 5, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky House of Representatives 2024 Regular Session, "Vote History," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, "House Bill 388," accessed June 17, 2024
- ↑ WDRB', "State lawmakers give 1st approval to bill making Louisville mayor, Metro Council races nonpartisan," February 7, 2024
- ↑ WHAS 11, "Kentucky House Bill looks to make Louisville elections for mayor, Metro Council nonpartisan: why bill sponsors think it will benefit Louisvillians," February 8, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 388 of the 2024 Regular Session," April 8, 2024
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky House of Representatives 2024 Regular Session, "Vote History," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ WECT, "SB 382 now law: House overrides Gov. Cooper’s veto of controversial bill," December 11, 2024
- ↑ Port City Daily, "House overrides SB 382 veto, Rep. Davis expressed concerns before voting in favor," December 11, 2024
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, "House Bill 556 / Senate Bill 166 / SL 2024-49," accessed September 18, 2024
- ↑ NC Governor Roy Cooper, "Governor Cooper Vetoes Two Bills," July 5, 2024
- ↑ North Carolina Public Radio, "NC Senate overrides five vetoes, OKs private school voucher funding," September 9, 2024
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, "House Bill 556 / SL 2024-47," accessed September 16, 2024
- ↑ NC Governor Roy Cooper, "Governor Cooper Signs Four Bills and Vetoes Two Bills," July 6, 2024
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, "House Bill 556 / SL 2024-47," accessed September 16, 2024
- ↑ 110.0 110.1 110.2 AP, "North Carolina governor vetoes masks bill largely because of provision about campaign finance," June 21, 2024 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "AP" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Medium, "Statement on Governor’s Veto of House Bill 237," June 21, 2024
- ↑ NC Governor Roy Cooper, "Governor Cooper Vetoes One Bill," June 21, 2024
- ↑ The North Carolina General Assembly, "House Bill 237/SL 2024-16," accessed July 9, 2024
- ↑ The New York Times, "Ohio to Ban Transition Care After Lawmakers Override Governor’s Veto," January 24, 2024
- ↑ Ohio Capital Journal, "Ohio Senate overrides DeWine vetoes on trans youth gender-affirming care and local tobacco bans," January 24, 2024
- ↑ The Ohio House of Representatives, "Speaker Stephens Issues Statement on Governor DeWine's Veto of House Bill 68," December 29, 2023
- ↑ State of Ohio Executive Department Office of the Governor, "Veto Message: Statement of the Reasons for the Veto of Substitute House Bill 68," December 29, 2023
- ↑ The Ohio Legislature, "House Bill 68 Votes," accessed February 15, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 72," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Office of Governor Phil Scott," "Action Taken by Governor Phil Scott on Legislation - May 30, 2024," May 30, 2024
- ↑ The Albertan," "Vermont Legislature passes law allowing for the creation of a drug overdose prevention center," June 17, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 72," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 887," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Office of Governor Phil Scott," June 6, 2024
- ↑ Vermont Digger," "Lawmakers override Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of annual property tax legislation," June 17, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 887," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 687," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Vermont Digger," "With veto override, Act 250 reform bill becomes law," June 17, 2024
- ↑ Office of Governor Phil Scott," "Action Taken by Governor Phil Scott on Legislation - May 30, 2024," May 30, 2024
- ↑ Vermont Digger," "With veto override, Act 250 reform bill becomes law," June 17, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 687," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 706," accessed June 20, 2024
- ↑ Office of Governor Phil Scott," "Action Taken by Governor Phil Scott on Legislation - May 20, 2024," May 20, 2024
- ↑ Vermont Biz," "Lawmakers override Scott's veto of property tax 'yield bill'" June 17, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 706,” accessed June 24, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 645," accessed June 24, 2024
- ↑ Office of Governor Phil Scott," "H.645 Veto Letter," June 4, 2024
- ↑ Vermont Biz," "Lawmakers override Scott's veto of property tax 'yield bill'" June 17, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 645," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 289," accessed June 24, 2024
- ↑ Office of Governor Phil Scott," "H.289 Veto Letter," May 23,, 2024
- ↑ Vermont Biz," "Lawmakers override Scott's veto of property tax 'yield bill'" June 17, 2024
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly, "House Bill 289," accessed June 21, 2024
- ↑ “The Washington Post,” “Kansas lawmakers override governor veto to pass anti-trans bathroom bill,” April 27,2023
- ↑ “Fox4,” “Kansas Gov. vetoes gender affirming care ban, bill defining biological sex,” April 20,2023
- ↑ “Fox4,” “Kansas Gov. vetoes gender affirming care ban, bill defining biological sex,” April 20,2023
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "2023-2024 Legislative Sessions," accessed June 19, 2023
- ↑ Kansas Legislature, "2023-2024 Legislative Sessions," accessed June 19, 2023
- ↑ 149.0 149.1 "cjonline," "Kansas lawmakers override anti-abortion vetoes months after voters spurned Value Them Both," April 27, 2023
- ↑ "osvnews," "Kansas Enacts ‘Born-Alive’ Bill After Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto," April 29, 2023
- ↑ CJOnline, "Kansas voters rejected Value Them Both. Republicans’ answer? Redefine ‘abortion’," April 10, 2023
- ↑ CJOnline, "Kansas voters rejected Value Them Both. Republicans’ answer? Redefine ‘abortion’," April 10, 2023
- ↑ 153.0 153.1 CJOnline, "Kansas tries to require abortion reversal pill disclosure — despite dispute over science," March 29, 2023
- ↑ [http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/vote_view/je_20230426162043_143547/ Kansas Legislature, "2023-2024 Legislative Sessions," accessed June 19, 2023]
- ↑ [http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/vote_view/je_20230426132912_920057/ Kansas Legislature, "2023-2024 Legislative Sessions," accessed June 19, 2023]
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "Supplemental Note on House Bill No. 2238," accessed May 16, 2023
- ↑ KSNT, "Kansas to enact bill banning trans athletes from women’s sports," April 5, 2023
- ↑ NPR KRPS, "Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly again vetoes bill banning transgender girls from girls’ sports," March 17, 2023
- ↑ Kansas Legislature, "2023-2024 Legislative sessions," accessed May 15, 2023
- ↑ Kansas Legislature, "2023-2024 Legislative sessions," accessed May 15, 2023
- ↑ Courier-Journal, "SB 150: What to know about the controversial anti-trans bill just passed in Kentucky," March 17, 2023
- ↑ 162.0 162.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky - Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky regarding the Senate Bill 150 of the 2023 Regular Session," March 24, 2023
- ↑ Courier-Journal, "Kentucky legislature overrides veto of anti-trans bill despite LGBTQ+ youths' pleas, March 30, 2023
- ↑ There are several terms used to describe these types of procedures. The Louisiana State Legislature used the language quoted here. Cornell University provides a glossary of terms including gender reassignment, gender-affirming, and gender-confirming treatments or care.
- ↑ 165.0 165.1 Louisiana State Legislature, "HB648," accessed July 31, 2023
- ↑ CNN, "Louisiana legislature overrides governor’s veto of ban on gender-affirming care for minors," July 18, 2023
- ↑ Cornell University, "Transgender Terminology," accessed April 7, 2021
- ↑ Fox8, "Override session ends with Louisiana lawmakers overturning Edwards’ veto of gender-affirming care ban," July 18, 2023
- ↑ Reuters, "Louisiana lawmakers reassert ban on gender-affirming care, overriding veto," July 19, 2023
- ↑ Governor of Louisiana, "Veto of House Bill 648 of the 2023 Regular Session," June 29, 2023
- ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "Reconsideration of Vetoed Bills HB 648 by Firment," July 18, 2023
- ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "Reconsideration of Vetoed Bills HB 648 by Firment," July 18, 2023
- ↑ UNC School of Government, “Bill Summaries: S747 (2023-2024 Session,” October 12, 2023
- ↑ “NC Political News”, “Statement on Gov. Cooper’s Intent to Veto Senate Bill 747” August 25, 2023
- ↑ “NC Governor Roy Cooper”, “Governor Cooper to Veto Election Bill that Makes it Harder to Vote and for Votes to Count” August 24, 2023
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, "HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #596,” October 10, 2023
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, "SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #482,” October 10, 2023
- ↑ “The News & Observer,” “NC GOP approves bill to overhaul election boards and strip governor of appointments,” September 22, 2023
- ↑ “Medium”, “Sen. Daniel Statement on Veto of Bipartisan Elections Boards Bill” September 28, 2023
- ↑ “NC Governor Roy Cooper”, “Governor Cooper Signs Three Bill, Vetoes One Bill” September 28,, 2023
- ↑ “NC General Assembly,” “SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #483,” October 10, 2023
- ↑ “NC General Assembly,” “HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #595,” October 10, 2023
- ↑ “Carolina Journal,” “Cooper seeks court order blocking elections board changes” November 7, 2023
- ↑ “WRAL NEWS,” “NC Senate passes bill shifting power from governor to General Assembly,” April 6, 2023
- ↑ “Medium”, “Statement on Gov. Cooper’s Veto of Senate Bill 512” August 24, 2023
- ↑ “The State of North Carolina”, “Governor Cooper Asks Court to Overturn Unconstitutional Legislative Power Grab”October 10, 2023
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #480,” October 10, 2023
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, “HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #593,” October 10, 2023
- ↑ “The State of North Carolina”, “COMPLAINT” October 10, 2023
- ↑ North Carolina General Assembly, “SESSION LAW 2023-106 SENATE BILL 49,” August 16, 2023
- ↑ “WUNC”, “NC General Assembly overrides veto on 'Parents' Bill of Rights," August 17, 2023
- ↑ “The State of North Carolina”, “Governor Cooper Vetoes Three Bills,” July 5, 2023
- ↑ "North Carolina General Assembly", HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #522," August 16, 2023
- ↑ "North Carolina General Assembly", "SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE TRANSCRIPT FOR ROLL CALL #425," August 16, 2023
- ↑ ‘’NBC,’’ “North Carolina Republicans override Democratic governor's veto of 12-week abortion ban,” May 16, 2023
- ↑ Winston-Salem Journal, "Triad of legislators split on importance of abortion restrictions on 2024 legislative election, May 28, 2023
- ↑ NC Governor Roy Cooper, “Governor Cooper Statement on Republican Vote to Override SB20 Veto,” May 16, 2023
- ↑ NBC, “North Carolina Republicans override Democratic governor's veto of 12-week abortion ban,” May 16, 2023
- ↑ Vermont Legislature, "Act No. 18 (S. 5).," accessed June 19, 2023
- ↑ “WAMC Northeast Public Radio,” “Vermont House overrides veto, enacts Affordable Heat Act,” May 11,2023
- ↑ “WAMC Northeast Public Radio,” “Vermont House overrides veto, enacts Affordable Heat Act,” May 11,2023
- ↑ “WAMC Northeast Public Radio,” “Vermont House overrides veto, enacts Affordable Heat Act,” May 11,2023
- ↑ WAMC, "Vermont House overrides veto, enacts Affordable Heat Act," May 11, 2023
- ↑ Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, "Senate Leadership Statement On Kelly Veto of Ad Astra 2 Map," Feb. 3, 2022
- ↑ 205.0 205.1 State of Kansas, "Senate Bill No. 355 (Enrolled,)" Feb. 3, 2022
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "SB 355 - House - Motion to override veto prevailed," Feb. 9, 2022
- ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "SB 355 - Senate - Motion to override veto prevailed," Feb. 8, 2022
- ↑ WHAS 11, "'He is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and he knows it.' Gov. Beshear vetoes proposed redistricting bills," Jan. 19, 2022
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 2 of the 2022 Regular Session," Jan. 19, 2022
- ↑ 210.0 210.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding Senate Bill 3 of the 2022 Regular Session," Jan. 19, 2022
- ↑ 211.0 211.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky House of Representatives, "HB2: AN ACT relating to redistricting. EMERGENCY," accessed Jan. 28, 2022
- ↑ 212.0 212.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Senate, "SB3: AN ACT relating to redistricting and declaring an emergency," accessed Jan. 28, 2022
- ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "KY Republicans override Beshear’s veto of sweeping abortion bill. It takes effect immediately," April 14, 2022
- ↑ Spectrum News 1, "Lawmakers override Beshear's veto of charter school funding bill," April 14, 2022
- ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, "Senate Bill 83," accessed April 29, 2022
- ↑ The News-Enterprise, "Tate files omnibus pro-life bill," Feb. 11, 2022
- ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky regarding House Bill 3 of the 2022 Regular Session," accessed April 15, 2022
- ↑ 218.0 218.1 The Lane Report, "Kentucky charter schools bill advances off House floor, heads to Senate," March 22, 2022
- ↑ 219.0 219.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky regarding House Bill 9 of the 2022 Regular Session," accessed April 15, 2022
- ↑ NBC News, "Kentucky Legislature overrides governor's veto of transgender sports ban," April 13, 2022
- ↑ Twitter, "Max Wise's tweet on April 6, 2022," accessed April 29, 2022
- ↑ 222.0 222.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding Senate Bill 83 of the 2022 Regular Session," accessed April 29, 2022
- ↑ Courier Journal, "Kentucky General Assembly speeds through overrides of Beshear vetoes. Here's a rundown," April 13, 2022
- ↑ 224.0 224.1 Kentucky General Assembly, "HB3: AN ACT relating to public health. EMERGENCY," accessed April 15, 2022
- ↑ 225.0 225.1 Kentucky General Assembly, "HB9: AN ACT relating to educational opportunities. APPROPRIATON." accessed April 15, 2022
- ↑ 226.0 226.1 Kentucky General Assembly, "SB83: AN ACT relating to athletics," accessed April 29, 2022
- ↑ KATC, "Louisiana Legislature overrides Edwards' veto of congressional maps," March 30, 2022
- ↑ KPLC News, "Civil rights groups file lawsuits over state’s new gerrymandered congressional maps," April 1, 2022
- ↑ The Hill, "Louisiana governor vetoes congressional maps," March 10, 2022
- ↑ Louisiana Office of the Governor, "Gov. Edwards Vetoes Proposed Congressional District Map, Announces Other Action on Newly Drawn District Maps," March. 9, 2022
- ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "RECONSIDERATION OF VETOED BILLS; HB1 BY MR. SPEAKER; PASS BILL SUBSEQUENT TO VETO," March 30, 2022
- ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "HB 1 BY MR. SPEAKER; MOTION BY HEWITT; OVERRIDE VETO," March 30, 2022
- ↑ The Advocate, "In an historic vote, Louisiana Legislature overturns governor's veto on congressional maps," March 30, 2022
- ↑ 234.0 234.1 234.2 234.3 234.4 234.5 234.6 234.7 Maryland Matters, "Hogan Vetoes Abortion and Paid Family Leave Bills, Allows Climate Measure to Become Law," April 8, 2022
- ↑ Twitter, "Shaneka Henson's tweet on April 8, 2022," accessed April 13, 2022
- ↑ 236.0 236.1 236.2 236.3 236.4 236.5 236.6 236.7 The Office of Governor Larry Hogan, "Governor Hogan Announces Additional Legislative Actions," accessed April 13, 2022
- ↑ Twitter, "Del. J. Peña-Melnyk's tweet on April 9, 2022
- ↑ 238.0 238.1 Fox 5 Washington DC, "Maryland lawmakers override Governor Hogan's vetoes," April 10, 2022
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Md. lawmakers overturn Hogan's veto, push for expanded MARC service," April 10, 2022
- ↑ Greenwich Time, "Maryland lawmakers override gov's veto of abortion expansion," April 9, 2022
- ↑ Maryland Matters, "Gun Dealers Oppose Speaker’s Bill to Require Theft Deterrents," March 2, 2022
- ↑ 242.0 242.1 Maryland Matters, "With Legislative Overrides, Paid Leave and Abortion Access Bills Become Law in Maryland," April 9, 2022
- ↑ The Daily Record, "Md. legislature enacts counsel requirement at child interrogations over Hogan’s veto," April 11, 2022
- ↑ "WGBH", "Mass. Senate overrides Baker veto: Undocumented immigrants will be able to get driver's licenses," June 9, 2022
- ↑ Massachusetts General Court, "Bill H.4805," accessed June 21, 2022
- ↑ "WGBH", "Mass. Senate overrides Baker veto: Undocumented immigrants will be able to get driver's licenses," June 9, 2022
- ↑ NBC 10 Boston, "Baker Vetoes Immigrant License Access Bill, But Legislature Can Override," May 27, 2022
- ↑ "Office of the Governor", "Message from His Excellency the Governor returning with his objections thereto in writing the engrossed Bill relative to work and family mobility (see House, No. 4805) May 27, 2022" accessed May 27, 2022
- ↑ "Office of the Governor", "Message from His Excellency the Governor returning with his objections thereto in writing the engrossed Bill relative to work and family mobility (see House, No. 4805) May 27, 2022" accessed May 27, 2022
- ↑ Massachusetts Senate, "Senate -- Roll Call #185," May 27, 2022
- ↑ MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, "H. 4805 shall this pass notwithstanding Objection," May 27, 2022
- ↑ NBC 10 Boston, "Dems Celebrate Mass. Driver's License Law as Opposition Organizes," May 27, 2022
- ↑ 253.0 253.1 253.2 Channel 6 News, "Nebraska legislature overrides budget vetoes including prison programs, MoPac trail," April 7, 2022
- ↑ 254.0 254.1 Nebraska Unicameral Update, "Lawmakers override line-item vetos; budget adjustments stand," April 7, 2022
- ↑ Nebraska Public Media, "Tax Cuts, ARPA Spending, Veto Overrides Approved," April 7, 2022
- ↑ Nebraska Office of the Governor, "Governor Pete Ricketts Veto Message," April 4, 2022
- ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "LB1011 - Provide, change, and eliminate provisions relating to appropriations," accessed April 13, 2022
- ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "LB1012 - Provide for fund transfers, create funds, and change and eliminate provisions regarding funds and reimbursement provisions," accessed April 13, 2022
- ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "LB1013 - Change provisions relating to the Cash Reserve Fund
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB0011," accessed March 30, 2022
- ↑ Utah Senate, "Legislature Overrides Veto on H.B. 11," March. 25, 2022
- ↑ 262.0 262.1 Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox, "Gov. Cox: Why I'm vetoing HB11," accessed March 30, 2022
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB0011 - House/ override Governor's veto - Passed 56 - 18 - 1," March 25, 2022
- ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB0011 - Senate/ override Governor's veto - Passed 21 - 8 - 0," March 25, 2022
- ↑ There are several terms used to describe gender reassignment treatments. The Arkansas General Assembly used the term "gender reassignment" in House Bill 1570. Cornell University provides a glossary of terms that says gender reassignment treatments may also be referred to as gender affirming or gender confirming treatments.
- ↑ 266.0 266.1 Arkansas General Assembly, "House Bill 1570," accessed April 7, 2021
- ↑ Cornell University, "Transgender Terminology," accessed April 7, 2021
- ↑ 268.0 268.1 The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Transgender-bill veto overridden; state 1st to ban kids’ gender-affirming care," April 7, 2021
- ↑ 269.0 269.1 YouTube, "Republican governor vetoes anti-transgender health care bill," April 5, 2021
- ↑ U.S. News, "Hawaii Lawmakers Override Ige's Veto of Tourism Funding Bill," July 6, 2021
- ↑ Hawaii Public Radio, "Lawmakers Override Gov. Ige's Veto on Tourism Funding Bill," July 7, 2021
- ↑ Hawaii Public Radio, "Lawmakers Override Gov. Ige's Veto on Tourism Funding Bill," July 7, 2021
- ↑ Governor of the State of Hawaii, "OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR NEWS RELEASE: GOVERNOR IGE ANNOUNCES FINAL VETOES," July 6, 2021
- ↑ Hawaii Public Radio, "Lawmakers Override Gov. Ige's Veto on Tourism Funding Bill," July 7, 2021
- ↑ Hawaii State Legislature, "HB826," accessed July 15, 2021
- ↑ Hawaii State Legislature , "HB826," accessed July 15, 2021
- ↑ 277.0 277.1 Illinois General Assembly, “Bill Status of HB0684,” accessed Oct.14, 2021
- ↑ LegiScan, “Illinois House Bill 684,” accessed Oct. 12, 2021
- ↑ 279.0 279.1 279.2 WSIU Public Radio, “First Responders Urge Governor to Sign Ambulance Carveout Bill,” Aug. 26, 2021
- ↑ Yahoo, “Illinois lawmakers override Pritzker’s ambulance veto, fail to agree on ethics changes,” Sept. 4, 2021
- ↑ 281.0 281.1 The State Journal-Register, “Ethics legislation fails in the Illinois House as Republicans pull their support,” Sept. 1, 2021
- ↑ 282.0 282.1 282.2 Indianapolis Star, "House overrides Gov. Holcomb's veto of landlord-tenant bill," Feb. 17, 2021
- ↑ 283.0 283.1 The Indiana Lawyer, "House votes to override governor’s veto of landlord-tenant bill, allowing it to become law," Feb. 18, 2021
- ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Roll Call 64: Veto Overridden," Feb. 8, 2021
- ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Roll Call 159: Veto Overriden," Feb. 17, 2021
- ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Senate Bill 5," accessed May 10, 2021
- ↑ 287.0 287.1 The Associated Press, "Indiana lawmakers override veto on local health rules," May 10, 2021
- ↑ WTHI-TV 10, "Indiana Legislature overrides Governor Holcomb’s veto of Senate Bill 5," May 10, 2021
- ↑ State of Indiana Office of the Governor, "May 4, 2021 veto message," May 4, 2021
- ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Actions for Senate Bill 5," accessed May 14, 2021
- ↑ Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Health care, public health, school and business leaders support Governor’s executive order," August 10, 2021
- ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, “Original Bill,” accessed Oct. 3, 2021
- ↑ WYMT, “Kentucky House and Senate override Governor Andy Beshear’s veto of bill aimed at ending school mask mandates,” Sept. 9, 2021
- ↑ WHAS, “Kentucky lawmakers override governor’s vetoes on COVID-related bills,” Sept.10, 2021
- ↑ “ACLU.ky.org”, “SB1 Senate Vote to Pass,” accessed October 3, 2021
- ↑ ACLU Kentucky, “SB1 House Vote to Pass,” accessed Oct. 3, 2021
- ↑ AP, "Maryland House overrides veto of major education measure," Feb. 8, 2021
- ↑ Maryland General Assembly website, "HB 1300 veto letter," May 7, 2020
- ↑ WJLA, "Senate joins House in overriding Gov. Hogan's veto of Kirwan education plan," Feb. 12, 2021
- ↑ WBAL, "General Assembly overrides veto on Kirwan Commission education reforms," Feb. 12, 2021
- ↑ Fox 45 News, "Kirwan Commission veto override," Feb. 9, 2021
- ↑ Maryland General Assembly, "SEQ NO. 198," Feb. 12, 2021
- ↑ Maryland General Assembly, "SEQ. NO. 9," Feb. 8, 2021
- ↑ 304.0 304.1 Governor of Maryland, "Veto letter," April 8, 2021
- ↑ 305.0 305.1 Maryland General Assembly, "Judicial Proceedings Committee (2/17/2021)," Feb. 17, 2021
- ↑ Governor of Maryland, "Veto letter," April 9, 2021
- ↑ Twitter, "Speaker Adrienne A. Jones," April 10, 2021
- ↑ Maryland General Assembly, “Congressional Redistricting Plan,” accessed Dec. 9, 2021
- ↑ 309.0 309.1 309.2 WTOP, "Md. General Assembly overrides Hogan’s veto of Congressional redistricting plan," Dec. 9, 2021
- ↑ WBAL-TV, "House, Senate override governor's veto of congressional redistricting map," December 9, 2021
- ↑ Federal News Network, “Maryland lawmakers override Hogan’s congressional map veto,” Dec. 9, 2021
- ↑ 312.0 312.1 WBAL, "House, Senate override governor's veto of congressional redistricting map," Dec. 10, 2021
- ↑ State of Maryland, "HB 1 veto letter," Dec. 9, 2021
- ↑ 314.0 314.1 314.2 StreetsBlog Mass, “State House Update: Lawmakers Override Gov. Baker’s Transit Budget Veto,” Aug 2. 2021
- ↑ Massachusetts Legislature, “Bill S.2277,” accessed Nov. 16, 2021
- ↑ WWLP News, “Regional transit advocates seek funding boost, clarity,” July 22 2021
- ↑ StreetsBlog Mass, “State House Update: Baker Vetoes RTA Budget Increase, Proposal Advances for New T Governing Board,” July 19, 2021
- ↑ Bloomberg, “Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems,” accessed July 14, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Nebraska lawmakers override vetoes of SNAP, pension bills," May 26, 2021
- ↑ Pensions and Investments Online, "Nebraska lawmakers override veto to transfer administration of Omaha plan," May 27, 2021
- ↑ Office of Governor Pete Ricketts, "Gov. Ricketts Urges Senators to Sustain Three Vetoes," May 25, 2021
- ↑ 322.0 322.1 While the Nebraska State Senate is officially nonpartisan, Senators often caucus with, are registered as, and receive endorsements from specific parties. Ballotpedia tracks these features when determining state Senators' political parties.
- ↑ ‘’Nebraska Legislature’’ , “Recorded Vote, LB147,” May 26, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Nebraska lawmakers override vetoes of SNAP, pension bills," May 26, 2021
- ↑ WOWT 8 News, "Nebraska Legislature overrides Ricketts veto of SNAP benefits," May 26, 2021
- ↑ Office of Governor Pete Ricketts, "Gov. Ricketts Urges Senators to Sustain Three Vetoes," May 25, 2021
- ↑ ‘’Nebraska Legislature’’ , “Recorded Vote, LB108,” May 26, 2021
- ↑ AP News, "Nebraska lawmakers override vetoes of SNAP, pension bills," May 26, 2021
- ↑ Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, “Energy Assistance (LIHEAP),” accessed July 14, 2021
- ↑ 330.0 330.1 Unicameral Update, "Veto of home energy assistance expansion overridden," May 26, 2021
- ↑ 331.0 331.1 Office of Governor Pete Ricketts, "Gov. Ricketts Urges Senators to Sustain Three Vetoes," May 25, 2021
- ↑ ‘’Nebraska Legislature’’ , “Recorded Vote, LB306
- ↑ 333.0 333.1 333.2 Fox 56, "Kentucky lawmakers override veto of voter ID measure," April 14, 2020
- ↑ Courier-Journal, "Kentucky legislature overrides 5 of Gov. Beshear's vetoes, passes Marsy's Law," April 14, 2020
- ↑ 335.0 335.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding Senate Bill 2 of the 2020 Regular Session," April 3, 2020
- ↑ NBC Boston, "Abortion Access Expanded in Mass. as Legislature Overrides Baker's Veto," Dec. 29, 2020
- ↑ Twitter, "Tweet from Harriette Chandler," Dec. 11, 2020
- ↑ PEW Trusts Stateline, "Trump-Appointed Judges Fuel Abortion Debate in the States," Jan. 25, 2021
- ↑ Masslive, "Read the letter: Gov. Charlie Baker explains reason behind veto of bill to expand abortion access in Massachusetts," Dec. 24, 2020
- ↑ 340.0 340.1 Massachusetts House of Representatives, "H. 5179 Shall this stand notwithstanding objection." accessed May 4, 2022
- ↑ Massachusetts State Senate, "H. 5179 -- Question on passing , notwithstanding the objections of the Governor," accessed May 4, 2022
- ↑ 342.0 342.1 342.2 The Associated Press, "Mississippi school funding feud resolved with veto, new bill," Aug. 10, 2020
- ↑ The Northside Sun, "Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto on Education Bill," Aug. 10, 2020
- ↑ 344.0 344.1 Office of the Governor, "Governor's Partial Veto Message for House Bill 1700," July 8, 2020
- ↑ Mississippi Department of Education, "Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP)," accessed Aug. 24, 2020
- ↑ 346.0 346.1 346.2 346.3 Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, "Stitt vetoes budget; Legislature overrides," May 14, 2020
- ↑ KOCO, "Fiscal year 2021 budget becomes law after House, Senate vote to override Gov. Stitt's veto," May 20, 2020
- ↑ Governor of Oklahoma website, "Governor Stitt Vetoes Legislature's Proposed FY 2021 Budget," May 13, 2020
- ↑ SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SB1922_VOTES.HTM Oklahoma House of Representatives, "SB 1922," accessed June 17, 2020
- ↑ SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/votes/Senate/SB1922_VOTES.HTM The Oklahoma State Senate, "SENATE BILL 1922," accessed June 17, 2020
- ↑ Stillwater News Press, "SEN. TOM DUGGER: Explaining the veto override," May 16, 2020
- ↑ Oklahoma Senate, "Statement from Senate Democrats on override of governor’s budget vetoes," May 14, 2020
- ↑ Vermont General Assembly's Office of Legislative Counsel, "Act No. 153 (H.688). Energy; climate change," accessed Dec. 14, 2020
- ↑ 354.0 354.1 Office of the Governor, "Veto message," Sept. 15, 2020
- ↑ Bennington Banner, "Vt. House overrides Scott's veto of climate bill," Sept. 17, 2020
- ↑ VTDigger, "House overrides Scott’s veto of Global Warming Solutions Act," Sept. 17, 2020
- ↑ 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
