Opinion ID: 2570810
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Germaneness

Text: The council argues that the vetoed language is germane to marketing seafood. The governor argues that it is not, because employee location does not relate to ASMI's statutory duties. We conclude that the vetoed language is not sufficiently germane because these three appropriations do not fund staffing at any location affected by the struck language. These appropriations were for purchasing contractual services, expenditures unrelated to encouraging local hire. The superior court correctly observed that separate appropriations funded state employee positions. The vetoed language therefore is not germane to these three appropriations. Given the absence of any direct relationship, it is insufficient that the language arguably has some general relationship  because it generally concerns ASMI and the performance of ASMI's duties  to the ASMI appropriations in chapters 98 and 100.