Opinion ID: 2570810
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: New substantive law

Text: The superior court found the vetoed language objectionable because it addressed an issue of substantive law, local hire, that the legislature has repeatedly addressed with substantive legislation. We agree that this language has the effect of creating a mini-local hire law. According to the legislature's drafting manual, an appropriation bill may not contain substantive provisions. [92] Permitting it to enact substantive policy in one appropriation bill by imposing conditions on another appropriation bill would reduce the public scrutiny and debate which accompany policy making, and could encourage logrolling and free-riders to achieve results not politically attainable in non-appropriation bills. The council argues that the legislature could have accomplished the same result with line-item appropriations and that the legislature followed the equivalent of that process. But we think that the process followed here was not equivalent. Line-item appropriations would have been subject to item vetoes, and would have required the legislature to give individualized consideration to each ASMI budget item. The legislature did not follow that course. The vetoed language here substantively affected the use of other appropriations, and cannot be considered merely a condition attached to the chapter 98 and 100 appropriations. In reaching beyond these appropriations, the struck language created new substantive law.