Opinion ID: 1169807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriation Item Vetoes

Text: The majority once again resurrects the repealed line item veto by calling it an appropriation item, when there is no appropriation about the item. I rest my case that an appropriation item necessarily includes an appropriation upon the plain text of the constitutional provision, the plain meaning of the words, and the overwhelming weight of authority from this jurisdiction and others. As noted our constitution expressly allows the Governor to veto (1) entire bills; (2) whole bill sections; and (3) appropriation items. Const. art. III, § 12 (amend.62). But the majority today impermissibly enlarges the executive's constitutional appropriation item veto to allow the Governor to veto nondollar provisos which are less than a section, yet not an appropriation of anything. An appropriation item is a dollar amount appropriated for a specified purpose. Nondollar provisos are not appropriation items and are not subject to item veto unless they, at the least, contain an appropriation item. The majority does not define appropriation item. The closest the majority comes to definition is cryptically noting that appropriation items are full subsections of the section of an appropriations bill. Majority at 893 n. 8. [6] This definition identifies less than a section yet not necessarily an appropriation itembecause a subsection may not appropriate anything. The majority holds appropriation items should extend to nondollar provisos in appropriations bills. Majority at 896. However, this holding is not limited to appropriation items as is the constitutional text. Some may be an item; however, the item veto power was repealed by constitutional amendment. Now only an appropriation item will suffice. For example, the majority allows the Governor to separately veto a provision stating that the state patrol may only issue vehicles to commissioned officers. Majority at 894. This is not an appropriation of anything and, hence, cannot be an appropriation item. As the majority explains, the voters' principal purpose in enacting amendment 62 was to eliminate the Governor's expanded veto practice by restoring the veto to pre-1960 status. Majority at 892. But what the majority fails to admit is prior to 1960 the Governor's use of the appropriation veto was strictly limited to dollar amounts appropriated for a specific purpose. [7] The amendment's purpose was simply to restrict the Governor's item veto to dollar amounts. This purpose is also affirmed by unambiguous statements of the 62nd amendment's sponsors made on the Senate floor just prior to its passage. Senate Journal, 43d Legislature, 3d Ex.Sess. (1974), at 116. (Senator Dore: When referring to appropriation item in the bill you are talking about a dollar amount. Senator Grant: That is correct.). [8] The majority cites this colloquy while dismissing it as `not necessarily indicative of legislative intent.' Majority at 895 (quoting Spokane County Health Dist. v. Brockett, 120 Wash.2d 140, 154-55, 839 P.2d 324 (1992)). However, Senate floor colloquies are generally used to divine intent ( see Howell v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank, 114 Wash.2d 42, 51, 785 P.2d 815 (1990)) and in particular the very colloquy in question was favorably used by this court to understand the scope of the item veto in Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 101 Wash.2d 536, 543-44, 682 P.2d 869 (1984). Astoundingly, early on the majority favorably cites the same colloquy but in support of a different proposition to reach the result it prefers. Majority at 892. That appropriation item means a dollar appropriation and not an isolated nondollar proviso is further supported by the great weight of authority. By most ordinary accounts appropriation item means a dollar amount for a stated purpose. See Blacks Law Dictionary 832 (6th ed. 1990) (An `item' in an appropriation is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose.). By comparison the majority holds: Nondollar provisos must be `appropriation items' under the constitution, as the rationale for application of the line item veto to dollar provisos applies with equal force to nondollar provisos. Majority at 895. But amendment 62 repealed the line item veto! The majority claims the two basic purposes for an appropriation item veto are: (1) to restrain unnecessary expenditures; and (2) to allow the Governor to avoid pork-barrel spending. Majority at 892. Allowing the Governor to veto nondollar clauses as appropriation items advances neither. But defining appropriation item as a dollar amount fits perfectly with both purposes. Moreover, limiting the item veto to dollar amounts (and, at the most, provisos which go with them) assures each appropriation item veto will reduce unnecessary spending. The appropriation item veto must affect spending, otherwise it is simply a resurrection of the repealed item veto. Further, any term allocating constitutional power implicates the strict and constitutionally mandatory separation of powers which check and balance the power of the opposing branch. But today's majority upsets the mandatory constitutional balance by significantly increasing the Governor's veto power at the expense of the Legislature's power to enact legislation as it sees fit. As one court correctly stated, when the Governor takes part in appropriation procedures [by using the line item veto], he is participating in the legislative process and the language conferring such authority is to be strictly construed. State ex rel. Cason v. Bond, 495 S.W.2d 385, 392 (Mo.1973). Yet this majority allows the Governor to remove all legislatively imposed restrictions on appropriations without affecting the appropriation, thereby retaining the entire appropriation for his purposes, not the Legislature's. Even the majority acknowledges that such Legislative directives may be legitimate expression[s] of the Legislature's oversight function over agencies and programs. Majority at 894. But the majority defeats this legitimate legislative function. The majority asserts appropriate inclusion of nondollar subsections in appropriation items under the pretense that this is consistent with the practice of other states. Majority at 896. This is misleading. The few states and cases the majority references are not necessarily on point. For example, the discussion of the New Mexico case omits the distinguishing fact that the New Mexico constitution allows the governor to veto part or parts, item or items, of any bill appropriating money.... N.M. Const. art. IV, § 22. As the New Mexico high court explained, by adopting broader language referring to part or parts, the constitutional convention specifically rejected a proposal which limited the partial veto to items of appropriations. State ex rel. Sego v. Kirkpatrick, 86 N.M. 359, 364, 524 P.2d 975, 980 (1974). Further, the majority declines to acknowledge that nearly every court which has addressed this issue, including the United States Supreme Court, has defined appropriation item as a dollar amount. See Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, 299 U.S. 410, 414-15, 57 S.Ct. 252, 254, 81 L.Ed. 312 (1937) (An item of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.). [9] The majority's true grievance appears to be the Legislature's use of nondollar instructions in appropriation bills. The majority claims this practice may violate the single subject rule's prohibition against substantive legislation in appropriation bills. Majority at 895 n. 11 (citing Const. art. II, § 19). However, if the Legislature violates Const. art. II, § 19's prohibition against multi-subject legislation, the clause at issue is Const. art. II, § 19, not the veto clause. In sum, amendment 62 limits the Governor's section veto to sections designated by the Legislature, not sections as a majority of this court would choose to legislate them. Similarly amendment 62 limits appropriation item vetoes to items of appropriation. Simple text, ample precedent, and common sense require this result. I dissent.