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

Veto overrides in state legislatures

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 20:47, 3 November 2020 by David Luchs (contribs)
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

Election results, 2020: State legislative supermajorities

See also: Election results, 2020: State legislative supermajorities

Two state legislatures saw changes in their veto-proof majority status—typically when one party controls either three-fifths or two-thirds of both chambers—as a result of the 2020 elections. Democrats gained veto-proof majorities in Delaware and New York, bringing the number of state legislatures with a veto-proof majority in both chambers to 24: 16 held by Republicans and eight held by Democrats.

Forty-four states held regularly-scheduled state legislative elections on November 3. Heading into the election, there were 22 state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in both chambers; 16 held by Republicans and six held by Democrats. Twenty of those states held legislative elections in 2020.

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.

Heading into the election, there were four states where the governor was a member of a different political party than the veto-proof majority: Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Maryland. All but Maryland held legislative elections in 2020, and no veto-proof majority status changes occurred. Ballotpedia identified five states with state legislative elections in 2020 that had the potential to gain a veto-proof majority of the party opposite the governor: Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. To find out what happened in those states, click here.

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.[1]


Changes in state legislative veto-proof majorites
State Before After
Delaware Democratic veto-proof majority in state House Democratic Party Democratic veto-proof majority in state legislature
New York Democratic veto-proof majority in state Assembly Democratic Party Democratic veto-proof majority in state legislature


Changes in state legislative chamber veto-proof majorities
Chamber Before After
Connecticut State Senate No veto-proof majority Democratic Party Democratic veto-proof majority
Delaware State Senate No veto-proof majority Democratic Party Democratic veto-proof majority
Montana House of Representatives No veto-proof majority Republican Party Republican veto-proof majority
Nevada State Assembly Democratic Party Democratic veto-proof majority No veto-proof majority
New York State Senate No veto-proof majority Democratic Party Democratic veto-proof majority


Veto-proof majorities and opposing-party governors

Veto-proof majorities are most important when the other party controls the governorship. This creates more opportunities for legislatures to override gubernatorial vetoes. Heading into 2020, the 22 state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in both chambers included four states where the governor was a member of a different political party than the veto-proof majority: Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Maryland. All but Maryland held legislative elections in 2020. As a result of the 2020 elections, Republicans maintained veto-proof majorities in Kansas and Kentucky, and Democrats maintained their veto-proof majority in Massachusetts. No governorships in these states were up for election in 2020.



Pre-election analysis

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.

After the November 2019 elections, there were 22 state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in both chambers. 16 of these state legislatures were controlled by Republicans and six were controlled by Democrats. In four states, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Maryland, 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.[2]
  • 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 Aug. 24, 2020

After the November 2019 elections, there were 22 state legislatures where one party held a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers.[2] Sixteen of the veto-proof legislatures were controlled by the Republican Party and six were controlled by the Democratic Party.

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. After November 2019, there were four 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 Kansas and Kentucky, 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.[2]
  • 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.

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[7]
Florida Special session or next regular session[8]
Georgia Special session[9]
Hawaii Special session
Indiana Next regular session[10]
Iowa Special session[11]
Louisiana Automatic veto session
Maryland Special session or next regular session.[12]
Mississippi Next regular session[13]
Missouri Automatic veto session
Montana Veto override poll conducted by the Secretary of State
Nevada Special session or next regular session[14]
New Jersey Automatic veto session after first regular session
New Mexico Special session or next regular session[15]
North Carolina Automatic veto session
Oregon Special session or next regular session[16]
Pennsylvania Second regular session[17]
South Carolina Special session or next regular session[18]
Tennessee Special session[19]
Utah Special session
Vermont Session veto session[20]
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.[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.

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.[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.

2020

  • Kentucky
    • Kentucky General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of a voter identification bill
  • Mississippi
    • Mississippi State Legislature overrides Gov. Tate Reeve's (R) partial veto of education appropriations bill
  • Oklahoma
    • Oklahoma State Legislature overrides Gov. Kevin Stitt's (R) veto of the 2021 general appropriations bill
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D)

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."[24] 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."[24] 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."[25]

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."[26] 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."[26]

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."[24]

Following the 2019 elections, Kentucky was one of four states where one party holds veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and an opposing party controls the governor's office.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R)

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.[27]

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.[28][29] 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.[30] 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."[29]

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."[27]

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.[27]

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R)

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.[31] 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."[31]

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.[31] Stitt had previously indicated he believed the shortfall should have been met with greater spending cuts than what was included in S.B. 1922.[32] 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."[33]

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.[34] 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.[35]

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."[36]

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."[37] 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.”[31]

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.

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.[38][39][40] 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.[41]

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.[42] 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.[43] 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.[44][45][46]

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.[47]

On August 28, the Illinois House rejected the agreement in a 46-61 vote.[48] 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.[49] On August 29, the Illinois Senate passed the compromise bill by a 38-13 vote. Gov. Rauner said he would sign the bill.[50]

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 General Assembly of North Carolina

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

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Moncrief, G. & Squire, P. (2010). "State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes". United States. Pearson Education. (184)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Even though Nebraska has a unicameral state legislature, it is included in this figure.
  3. ↑ One party needs to control 40 of the 60 seats across both chambers to have a veto-proof majority in the legislature
  4. ↑ Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its two legislative chambers, which is 40 of 60 legislators.
  5. ↑ California State Capitol Museum, "Life Cycle of a Bill," accessed July 21, 2017
  6. ↑ Spokesman.com "Grocery tax repeal veto prompts debate in Idaho over powers of Legislature, governor," April 23, 2017
  7. ↑ Delaware State News, "Delaware legislators to attempt override of opt-out veto," January 13, 2016
  8. ↑ The Orlando Sentinel "Gov. Rick Scott's veto power: Tallahassee takeaways," May 18, 2017
  9. ↑ 11 Alive, "Lawmakers: No special session for veto override, please," March 31, 2016
  10. ↑ Indianapolis Business Journal, "Indiana Senate votes to override two Pence vetoes," February 14, 2017
  11. ↑ NewsOK, "Iowa lawmakers ponder a special session," May 19, 2013
  12. ↑ The Baltimore Sun, "Hogan vetoes Maryland Democrats' paid sick leave bill," May 25, 2017
  13. ↑ Mississippi First, "Governor Bryant Vetoes SB 2161," April 24, 2015
  14. ↑ Nevada Legislature, "Vetoes and Special Sessions," accessed July 3, 2017
  15. ↑ Newmexicopolitics.net "New Mexico’s veto problem," June 26, 2017
  16. ↑ The Oregon Legislature, "How an Idea Really Becomes a Law," accessed July 3, 2017
  17. ↑ Pennsylvania Code, "§ 9.127. Passage of vetoed bill.," accessed July 3, 2017
  18. ↑ The News & Observer "Special veto session unlikely for South Carolina Legislature," July 1, 2017
  19. ↑ TN Report, "Veto-Override Session May be in Works," March 21, 2014
  20. ↑ Vermont Secretary of State, "Pocket Veto," accessed July 3, 2017
  21. ↑ Watson, Richard. Origins and Early Development of the Veto Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol.17, no.2 (1987): 401-412.
  22. ↑ The Washington Post, "President Obama’s recent vetoes were unconstitutional. Congress should sue him.," December 30, 2015
  23. ↑ Moncrief, G. & Squire, P. (2010). "State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes". United States. Pearson Education. (184)
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Fox 56, "Kentucky lawmakers override veto of voter ID measure," April 14, 2020
  25. ↑ Courier-Journal, "Kentucky legislature overrides 5 of Gov. Beshear's vetoes, passes Marsy's Law," April 14, 2020
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 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
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 The Associated Press, "Mississippi school funding feud resolved with veto, new bill," Aug. 10, 2020
  28. ↑ The Northside Sun, "Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto on Education Bill," Aug. 10, 2020
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 <http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2020/pdf/veto/HB1700.pdf Office of the Governor, "Governor's Partial Veto Message for House Bill 1700," July 8, 2020]
  30. ↑ Mississippi Department of Education, "Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP)," accessed Aug. 24, 2020
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, "Stitt vetoes budget; Legislature overrides," May 14, 2020
  32. ↑ KOCO, "Fiscal year 2021 budget becomes law after House, Senate vote to override Gov. Stitt's veto," May 20, 2020
  33. ↑ Governor of Oklahoma website, "Governor Stitt Vetoes Legislature's Proposed FY 2021 Budget," May 13, 2020
  34. ↑ SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SB1922_VOTES.HTM Oklahoma House of Representatives, "SB 1922," accessed June 17, 2020
  35. ↑ SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/votes/Senate/SB1922_VOTES.HTM The Oklahoma State Senate, "SENATE BILL 1922," accessed June 17, 2020
  36. ↑ Stillwater News Press, "SEN. TOM DUGGER: Explaining the veto override," May 16, 2020
  37. ↑ Oklahoma Senate, "Statement from Senate Democrats on override of governor’s budget vetoes," May 14, 2020
  38. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EDU
  39. ↑ NPR Illinois, "Education Desk: Evidence-Based School Funding Model Explained," September 26, 2016
  40. ↑ WTTW, "Education Funding in Illinois: How the Evidence-Based Model Works," September 21, 2016
  41. ↑ U.S. News and World Report, "Rauner Aide: Democrats' School Funding Plan a CPS 'Bailout'," May 17, 2017
  42. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner vetoes education funding plan, Emanuel accuses him of 'fuzzy math'," August 1, 2017
  43. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Senate overrides Rauner school funding veto, but House hurdle remains," August 13, 2017
  44. ↑ The Chicago Sun-Times, "Speaker Madigan calls legislators to work — on Governor’s Day," August 9, 2017
  45. ↑ wglt.org, "Illinois House To Vote Next Week On School Funding Override," August 16, 2017
  46. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Madigan calls off Wednesday session in Springfield; no override vote of Rauner for now," August 23, 2017
  47. ↑ Politico, "SCHOOL funding WINNERS and LOSERS — RAUNER staffing TURMOIL — Saving ABE in CHICAGO," August 25, 2017
  48. ↑ capitolfax.com, "Education funding reform bill gets just 46 votes," August 28, 2017
  49. ↑ capitolfax.com, "On second try, education funding reform passes with 73 votes," August 28, 2017
  50. ↑ 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=8181249"