Skip to main content

Why Do Some States Even Have Governors?

By

Recently, the state of Arkansas made headlines across the nation when they overrode a governor's veto to enact the tightest abortion restrictions in the country (at that time). Most of the news, deservedly so, focused on the content of the new act. What caught my eye, however, was how easy it was for the Arkansas legislature to override a veto: a mere simple majority of both houses is required!

If that's all it takes, why even involve a governor in the process?!

But Arkansas isn't alone. Five other states do not require at least three-fifths of each house to override a veto: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. All of these require simply a majority of those elected in each house to override a veto. To be fair, although most states require at least three-fifths of legislators elected to override a veto, several states require two-thirds or three-fifths of the members present to do so, which, when coupled with a quorum requirement of a majority of those elected, means that a veto theoretically could be overridden with the approval of as little as one-third (plus one) of the elected legislature. But these states that require a simple majority of those elected in each house to override a veto (with the exception of Kentucky), also require a simple majority of those elected in each house to pass a bill to begin with! (Kentucky requires a majority of those present, provided that that majority is at least two-fifths of the number elected, in order to pass a bill (see Ky. Const. sec. 46), so requiring a majority of those elected to override a veto theoretically can make a difference.)

Now to be exact, the Arkansas Constitution requires "a majority of the whole number elected" of each house to override a veto (see Ark. Const. art. 6, sec. 15). But section 22 of Article 5 of the Arkansas Constitution states that, before being sent to the governor for his consideration, "no bill shall [be passed] unless . . . a majority of each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor." The question becomes: Is the "majority" mentioned in Art. 5, sec. 22, a majority of those present or of those elected? According to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, this section requires a majority of those elected (see Smith v. Ridgeview Baptist Church, 514 S.W.2d 717, 718 (1974)). In other words, just like all of the other states that require a simple majority to override a veto (with the exception of Kentucky), that number needed to override is the exact same number required to pass a bill in the first place!

On paper, as the title of this post suggests, the presence of an executive in the legislative process seems superfluous in these states. One would think that, if 50% plus 1 of each house of a state's legislature is needed to pass a bill, and the same number is needed to override a veto, then a governor's veto should never be successful. But that is not the case. In Arkansas, Governor Mike Beebe, since taking office in 2007, has issued eleven vetoes (not counting one line item veto). Of those vetoes, only the two most recent ones involving extreme restrictions on abortion rights (HB 1037 and SB 134) were overridden by the legislature, and even then, both bills lost votes between the two stages!

I guess it's due to the fickle nature of politics that these states maintain an executive presence in the legislative process.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more