Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > May > 10
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Reading other people’s mail: The Speaker’s apology to the governor
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In the face of a formal request made under the state’s Open Record Act, Gov. Sonny Perdue’s office has reluctantly surrendered a copy of the written apology that accompanied the verbal version offered by House Speaker Glenn Richardson on Monday.
Remember that you read it here first.
In the letter, Richardson took responsibility for his “poor choice” of words, but said they erupted from him while he was under great stress. The word “backside” does not appear.
Wrote Richardson: “When I spoke, I was upset, defensive of the House and quite exhausted by the lengthy session and final adoption by us of the ’07 and ’08 budgets in the preceding 36 hours. While I feel some of my response was initiated by the actions and remarks of others, this is not the time to make excuses or lay blame on others.”
Aside from the crow consumed, the document is important on two points:
— First, as we suspected, the apology was prelude to Richardson’s urging of the governor to abandon his plans for a special session. One reversal for another.
“I believe it is not only possible to avoid a costly special session, I believe it is imperative that we act quickly to fund those necessary items which need immediate attention such as the mid-year adjustment for local school systems, PeachCare and tornado relief for Sumter County,” Richardson wrote.
— Secondly, the House speaker offered Perdue cover on the “unveto.” You’ll remember that the governor, as well as Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, declared the House override of Perdue’s April 19 veto of the $700 million budget bill — and its $142 million tax rebate — to be invalid.
The veto wouldn’t become official until it was formally transmitted to the House, Perdue and Cagle maintained. Richardson and House leaders scoffed at such hair-splitting.
But in his note to Perdue, Richardson said he was willing to concede the point, if it meant avoiding a special session.
Wrote the Speaker: “If you will simply strike through the word ‘vetoed,’ which was written by you on April 18, 2007, and sign the bill again, I believe the supplemental appropriations bill will become law.
“Moreover, I believe that the only entity who could thereafter question whether there had been a transmittal would be the House. And, by this letter and my signature, I am agreeing on this resolution. Thus, the action would not again be raised and would be final.”
To Saxby, Iraq progress “truly amazing.” To another Republican eyewitness — well, not so much.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Democrats, via Daily Kos, are marveling at U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ view of the Iraq war, expressed on Tuesday in a telephone conference talk with reporters, following a just-completed jaunt to the Middle East.
“Every time I go over there the improvements in the conditions are truly amazing,” said the Republican senator.
Kos notes that U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine, was on the same trip. “The good news is mixed; the bad news is downright troubling,” Snowe said.
Both are members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Other than geography — Maine isn’t known for its large military population — part of the difference in eyesight may be the fact that Snowe isn’t up for re-election in ’08.
She’s joined with U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, in a bipartisan attempt to create a series of benchmarks for progress in Iraq.
An invitation to a lawsuit: Does the governor have the power to play Lazarus with legislation?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Tom Stubbs is a Decatur attorney who is also chairman of the State Bar’s advisory committee on legislation. Which means he spends a deal of time reading laws-to-be, and presumably, the state Constitution.
He sent the note below out to members of his committee — and copied us, with the caveat that his observations were personal, and not official.
Stubbs admits the following may not be the Pelican Brief, but he questions whether Gov. Sonny Perdue has the constitutional authority to resurrect a bill he has already vetoed. And he predicts that some anti-tax group might think it has sufficient grounds to test the issue.
Here’s the note:
I have to admit that I am mystified by the governor’s sleight-of-hand with respect to his rescission of the veto.
Under what authority may the Governor “un-veto” a bill? The governor vetoed the legislation on April 19. There is no question that he vetoed the bill.
Article 3, Section 5, Paragraph 13, and Article 5, Section 2, Paragraph 4, of the Georgia Constitution outline the procedures for a veto. The latter section succinctly states that the “governor may veto, approve or take no action on any such bill or resolution.”
Nowhere in either section (or anywhere else I can find) does it say the governor can “un-veto” a bill. The former section explains the procedures that are to be followed once a veto is made, and none of those procedures include an option for the governor to “take it back.”
Moreover, the impropriety of the “un-veto” is shown by how it has no parameters in the Constitution or statute.
When is the latest he can un-veto? Can he do it while the Legislature is trying to override the veto? Afterwards? Two years later?
If the governor can pluck this power from thin air, then there are no limits to how it can be applied.
I presume the governor is hanging his hat on the issue that was obliquely mentioned at the end of the last session when the House voted to override the veto.
The governor indicated that he had not transmitted his veto to the House, while the House stated, as I recall, that whether a message, bill or other such thing has been received is determined by the House receiving it.
Thus, the House went forward with its vote. In that regard, the governor is required under Article 3, Section 5, Paragraph 13, to transmit the reasons for his veto to the house originating the bill within 60 days of an adjournment (if the Legislature adjourns sooner than three days after the veto).
The Constitution does not say what happens if the governor fails to transmit his reasons. It certainly does not say that the veto is undone. Presumably, the provision simply would give the Legislature the right to compel transmission of the vetoed bill to the Legislature so they could attempt to override it.
The closest case I can find relates to [state Supreme Court] Justice [Robert] Benham’s hometown, Solomon v Commissioners of Cartersville, 41 Ga. 157 (1870).
In that case, the governor signed a bill after the deadline for signing a bill into law (after the General Assembly adjourned).
The Court held that the bill did not become law even though the governor signed it.
The signature was ineffective because it was too late and the governor had no authority to sign the legislation into law once the deadline passed.
By reverse implication, once a bill is vetoed, it is dead and I do not see where the Constitution gives the governor authority to bring the bill back to life.
If the Governor has no authority to “un-veto” a bill, then none of the bill should become law.
A taxpayer or other person may have a claim to prevent any of the other provisions of the supplemental appropriations — such as the funds for indigent defense — from being implemented.
I would not put it past a number of the taxpayer groups who supported the property tax provision to bring an action along these lines. I am probably crazy, but I think this is fishy and I don’t think the last shoe has necessarily dropped.
