State Supreme Court rules Governor issued illegal vetoes

In a 7-2 ruling this morning, the State Supreme Court said the partial vetoes the Governor made in the 2019 transportation budget were unconstitutional. When issuing those vetoes the Governor said:

“While my veto authority is generally limited to subsections or appropriation items in an appropriation bill, in this very rare and unusual circumstance I have no choice but to veto a single sentence in several subsections to prevent a constitutional violation and to prevent a forced violation of state law.”

The State Supreme Court disagreed today saying:

“We hold that the Washington Legislature enacted the fuel type condition pursuant to its constitutional authority to appropriate funds and to control the expenditure of those funds. Governor Inslee exceeded his article III, section 12 veto power by striking the fuel type condition, which formed only one part of each appropriation item in which it appeared. Further, the fuel type condition does not constitute substantive law smuggled into a budget bill in violation of article II, section 19; it is a valid legislative limit on an executive agency’s expenditure of appropriated funds. And the fuel type condition does not amend any existing law without setting forth that law in full; it therefore complies with article II, section 37. We affirm the superior court’s orders on summary judgment in favor of the legislature.”

For background, Washington’s current veto restriction language was adopted by voters via a constitutional amendment in 1974. According to the arguments in the 1974 Voter’s Guide:

“Help Rid Your State of One-Man Lawmaking – Washington is the only state in the nation in which the Governor exercises practically unlimited power to remove portions of laws passed by the Legislature . . . SJR 140 will prevent one person from changing behind the closed doors of his office bills which are the product of an open hearing process, accessible and visible to all citizens.”

As a result of this 1974 constitutional amendment, Washington’s veto restriction now says (emphasis added):

“If any bill presented to the governor contain several sections or appropriation items, he may object to one or more sections or appropriation items while approving other portions of the bill: Provided, That he may not object to less than an entire section, except that if the section contain one or more appropriation items he may object to any such appropriation item or items.”

Today’s State Supreme Court ruling should help prod lawmakers to file another lawsuit against the Governor for his unconstitutional vetoes this year in the “Grand Bargain” bills tying the LCFS and Cap and Trade bills to a future transportation package.

That lawsuit hasn’t been filed yet by lawmakers. In potentially related news, the Governor last week sent a very strange public records request to several Democratic Senators and legislative staff surrounding their discussions about the LCFS and Cap and Trade bills.

The constitution is clear that the only options for vetoes are sectional or appropriations. The Governor may not veto a word or sentence within a section. Today’s ruling by the State Supreme Court is an important step to prevent returning the state to the “One-Man Lawmaking” the 1974 constitutional amendment tried to avoid. Of course, emergency powers reform will also be important to prevent a different type of one person rule abuse.

– Jason Mercier is the director of the Center for Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center.