Opinion
March 26, 2003
Gov. Riley wants a stronger one, but he probably
won't get it.
Ask a politician about the line-item veto and the answer
will be predictable. Someone in the executive branch of government
- the president or a governor - will insist that such powers are necessary
to protect the public against pork-barrel spending and the like.
But those in the legislative branch - federal or state
- will tell you that the line-item veto is an usurpation of political
power that rightly belongs to the legislative branch.
Alabama Gov. Bob Riley likes the line-item veto. And
he wants a stronger one than the state has now. Riley's citizens'
commission on the state constitution concurs. But since such authority
could be granted only by the Legislature and then by the people, that
first hurdle is a high one to clear; a more powerful line-item veto
is likely to remain what it is now - an idea to talk about, not implement.
Because the present state constitution says that a line-item
veto, like any other veto, can be overridden by a simple majority
of both houses of the Legislature, the process is a waste of time.
It merely resubmits an item that's already been passed and requires
no additional burden of passage.
In its report to Gov. Riley, the citizens' commission
proposes that every veto, line-item or otherwise, would stand unless
it were overridden by two-thirds majorities in both houses. Alabama
is one of only five states that now allows an override by a simple
majority vote.
Historically, the Alabama Legislature has been loath
to surrender power to anyone for any purpose. This case probably won't
be different, especially with the other constitutional reform proposals
on the table, some of which would also limit legislators' power.
But the House and the Senate should not rush to throw
out the whole package. It includes on important affirmation of legislative
authority and, thus, a limit on gubernatorial authority.
The commission would change the law as to what happens
when a bill is before the governor after the Legislature has concluded
its business and adjourned for the session. At present, unless the
governor signs such a bill, it dies. This called a pocket veto. Under
the proposed change, the opposite would occur: Such a bill would automatically
become law in the absence of a veto.
That change would be significant in Alabama, one of only
13 states that still allow the pocket veto. The proposal could very
well change the way the Legislature operates, which would not be a
bad thing. House and Senate members may want to think about whether
the two-thirds majority for a veto override is really so objectionable
- especially if you're getting rid of the pocket veto.
Return to: Constitutional Reform ~ In the
News
Return to: Editorial
Index
