Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Veto overrides in state legislatures

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
SLP badge.png
Features of State Legislatures
Length of terms: Representatives • Senators
How vacancies are filled in state legislatures
States with a full-time legislature
Legislatures with multi-member districts
State legislatures with term limits
Comparison of state legislative salaries
When legislators assume office?
State constitutions
State legislative sessions
State legislative walkouts
Candidate requirements by state
Resign-to-run laws
Minority and coalition control of state legislative chambers, 1994-Present
Veto overrides in state legislatures
Elected officials expelled from state legislatures
Primary runoffs

Veto overrides occur when a legislature votes to reverse a veto issued by an executive such as a governor or the president. A veto is an act of disapproval by an executive that prohibits a bill passed by a legislature from becoming law.

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.

As of August 2017, there were 22 state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in both chambers. 17 of these state legislatures were controlled by Republicans and five were controlled by Democrats. In three states, Massachusetts, Maryland, and North Carolina, one party had a veto-proof majority in the legislature and the other party held the governor's office. Click here to read more.

The vote margin required to override a veto varies by state:

  • 36 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.

Click here to read more about the rules for veto overrides in state legislatures.

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. Click here to read more.

Ballotpedia has also identified conflicts between governors and state legislatures related to veto overrides. Read more here.

States with veto-proof majorities

Last updated on November 16, 2017

As of November 2017, there were 22 state legislatures where one party held a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers.[1] 17 of the veto-proof legislatures were controlled by the Republican Party and five were controlled by the Democratic Party. Following the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled the legislature in 32 states, Democrats controlled the legislature in 13 states, and five states were split between the parties.

In states where one party has a veto-proof majority in the state legislature and the other party controls the governor's office, there is potential for conflict. As of August 2017, there were three state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in the state legislature and the other party controlled the governor's office. In Maryland and Massachusetts, Democrats had a veto-proof majority in the legislature and a Republican held the governor's office. In North Carolina, Republicans had a veto-proof majority in the legislature and a Democrat held the governor's office.

Conflict is not limited to states with split party control of the legislature and the governor's office. It can also arise in states where one party has veto-proof majorities in both chambers and controls the governor's office. For example, in June 2017, the Kansas Legislature overrode Gov. Sam Brownback's (R) veto of a bill related to tax cuts, despite the Republicans having veto-proof majorities in both chambers. Read more below.

Click [show] to see a state-by-state breakdown of which chambers have veto-proof majorities.

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.[5] 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.

Overriding post-adjournment vetoes
State When post-adjournment vetoes can be overridden
Alaska Special session or second regular session
Connecticut Automatic veto session
Delaware Next regular session[6]
Florida Special session or next regular session[7]
Georgia Special session[8]
Hawaii Special session
Indiana Next regular session[9]
Iowa Special session[10]
Louisiana Automatic veto session
Maryland Special session or next regular session.[11]
Mississippi Next regular session[12]
Missouri Automatic veto session
Montana Veto override poll conducted by the Secretary of State
Nevada Special session or next regular session[13]
New Jersey Automatic veto session after first regular session
New Mexico Special session or next regular session[14]
North Carolina Automatic veto session
Oregon Special session or next regular session[15]
Pennsylvania Second regular session[16]
South Carolina Special session or next regular session[17]
Tennessee Special session[18]
Utah Special session
Vermont Session veto session[19]
Virginia Automatic veto session
Washington Special session or next regular session

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.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention

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. 36 states adopted the same two-thirds threshold for veto overrides in their constitutions.[20]

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."[21] At the state legislative level, the veto override power works the same way.

Conflict

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.[22]

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.

2017

  • Kansas
    • Kansas Legislature overrides Gov. Sam Brownback's (R) veto of a tax increase
  • Idaho
    • Idaho legislators sue over the state's pocket veto rules
  • Illinois
    • Illinois Legislature overrides Gov. Bruce Rauner's (R) veto of state budget
  • North Carolina
    • North Carolina Legislature overrides four of Gov. Roy Cooper's (D) vetoes
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R)

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 Gov. Butch Otter (R)

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 Gov. Bruce Rauner (R)

Illinois

Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Bruce Rauner's (R) vetoes related to state budget

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.[23][24][25] 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.[26]

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.[27] 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.[28] 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.[29][30][31]

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.[32]

On August 28, the Illinois House rejected the agreement in a 46-61 vote.[33] 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.[34] On August 29, the Illinois Senate passed the compromise bill by a 38-13 vote. Gov. Rauner said he would sign the bill.[35]

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 Gov. Roy Cooper (D)

North Carolina

Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides four vetoes issued by Gov. Roy Cooper (D)

See also: Conflicts between Gov. Roy Cooper and the North Carolina General Assembly

From March 23, 2017, to June 28, 2017, the North Carolina General Assembly 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

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Even though Nebraska has a unicameral state legislature, it is included in this figure.
  2. ↑ One party needs to control 40 of the 60 seats across both chambers to have a veto-proof majority in the legislature
  3. ↑ Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its two legislative chambers, which is 40 of 60 legislators.
  4. ↑ California State Capitol Museum, "Life Cycle of a Bill," accessed July 21, 2017
  5. ↑ Spokesman.com "Grocery tax repeal veto prompts debate in Idaho over powers of Legislature, governor," April 23, 2017
  6. ↑ Delaware State News, "Delaware legislators to attempt override of opt-out veto," January 13, 2016
  7. ↑ The Orlando Sentinel "Gov. Rick Scott's veto power: Tallahassee takeaways," May 18, 2017
  8. ↑ 11 Alive, "Lawmakers: No special session for veto override, please," March 31, 2016
  9. ↑ Indianapolis Business Journal, "Indiana Senate votes to override two Pence vetoes," February 14, 2017
  10. ↑ NewsOK, "Iowa lawmakers ponder a special session," May 19, 2013
  11. ↑ The Baltimore Sun, "Hogan vetoes Maryland Democrats' paid sick leave bill," May 25, 2017
  12. ↑ Mississippi First, "Governor Bryant Vetoes SB 2161," April 24, 2015
  13. ↑ Nevada Legislature, "Vetoes and Special Sessions," accessed July 3, 2017
  14. ↑ Newmexicopolitics.net "New Mexico’s veto problem," June 26, 2017
  15. ↑ The Oregon Legislature, "How an Idea Really Becomes a Law," accessed July 3, 2017
  16. ↑ Pennsylvania Code, "§ 9.127. Passage of vetoed bill.," accessed July 3, 2017
  17. ↑ The News & Observer "Special veto session unlikely for South Carolina Legislature," July 1, 2017
  18. ↑ TN Report, "Veto-Override Session May be in Works," March 21, 2014
  19. ↑ Vermont Secretary of State, "Pocket Veto," accessed July 3, 2017
  20. ↑ Watson, Richard. Origins and Early Development of the Veto Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol.17, no.2 (1987): 401-412.
  21. ↑ The Washington Post, "President Obama’s recent vetoes were unconstitutional. Congress should sue him.," December 30, 2015
  22. ↑ Moncrief, G. & Squire, P. (2010). "State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes". United States. Pearson Education. (184)
  23. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EDU
  24. ↑ NPR Illinois, "Education Desk: Evidence-Based School Funding Model Explained," September 26, 2016
  25. ↑ WTTW, "Education Funding in Illinois: How the Evidence-Based Model Works," September 21, 2016
  26. ↑ U.S. News and World Report, "Rauner Aide: Democrats' School Funding Plan a CPS 'Bailout'," May 17, 2017
  27. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner vetoes education funding plan, Emanuel accuses him of 'fuzzy math'," August 1, 2017
  28. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Senate overrides Rauner school funding veto, but House hurdle remains," August 13, 2017
  29. ↑ The Chicago Sun-Times, "Speaker Madigan calls legislators to work — on Governor’s Day," August 9, 2017
  30. ↑ wglt.org, "Illinois House To Vote Next Week On School Funding Override," August 16, 2017
  31. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Madigan calls off Wednesday session in Springfield; no override vote of Rauner for now," August 23, 2017
  32. ↑ Politico, "SCHOOL funding WINNERS and LOSERS — RAUNER staffing TURMOIL — Saving ABE in CHICAGO," August 25, 2017
  33. ↑ capitolfax.com, "Education funding reform bill gets just 46 votes," August 28, 2017
  34. ↑ capitolfax.com, "On second try, education funding reform passes with 73 votes," August 28, 2017
  35. ↑ capitolfax.com, "React rolls in to passage of education funding reform," August 29, 2017
v • e
State legislatures
Legislatures
Alabama (H, S) · Alaska (H, S) · Arizona (H, S) · Arkansas (H, S) · California (A, S) · Colorado (H, S) · Connecticut (H, S) · Delaware (H, S) · Florida (H, S) · Georgia (H, S) · Hawaii (H, S) · Idaho (H, S) · Illinois (H, S) · Indiana (H, S) · Iowa (H, S) · Kansas (H, S) · Kentucky (H, S) · Louisiana (H, S) · Maine (H, S) · Maryland (H, S) · Massachusetts (H, S) · Michigan (H, S) · Minnesota (H, S) · Mississippi (H, S) · Missouri (H, S) · Montana (H, S) · Nebraska · Nevada (A, S) · New Hampshire (H, S) · New Jersey (GA, S) · New Mexico (H, S) · New York (A, S) · North Carolina (H, S) · North Dakota (H, S) · Ohio (H, S) · Oklahoma (H, S) · Oregon (H, S) · Pennsylvania (H, S) · Rhode Island (H, S) · South Carolina (H, S) · South Dakota (H, S) · Tennessee (H, S) · Texas (H, S) · Utah (H, S) · Vermont (H, S) · Virginia (H, S) · Washington (H, S) · West Virginia (H, S) · Wisconsin (A, S) · Wyoming (H, S)
SLP badge.png
2025
2024
2023
Historical elections
2022 •  2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002 • 2001 • 2000
Features of
state legislatures
State senates
State houses
Leadership positions
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Veto_overrides_in_state_legislatures&oldid=7034493"