Opinion ID: 2575542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The item veto power and bills other than the general appropriations bills

Text: We finally turn to the issue of the Governor's item veto power over bills other than the general appropriations bills. The legislature enacted House Bill 02-1246 titled Concerning the Creation of the Eligible Facilities Education Task Force, and Making an Appropriation Therefor. The Governor vetoed a $10,000 appropriation to compensate members of the legislature who served on the task force. The Governor contends he has the power to disapprove of any appropriations provision of any bill, including a substantive bill. The General Assembly submits the item veto power extends only to general appropriations bills rendering the Governor's attempted veto of the appropriation in House Bill 02-1246 invalid because it is a substantive bill subject only to the full veto power of article IV, section 11 of the state constitution. We agree with the legislature that an appropriation in a substantive bill does not make that bill an appropriations bill subject to the item veto power. As we explained in Lamm II, [a]ll bills other than general appropriations bills must encompass only a single subject. 704 P.2d at 1383; Colo. Const. art. V, § 21 (bills must contain only one subject except general appropriations bills). The bifurcation of single subject requirements for substantive bills and multi-subject allowance for long bills is properly reflected in the two types of veto power maintained by the Governor. Article IV, section 11 requires the Governor to veto a bill in its entirety. See also Lamm II, 704 P.2d at 1383. The item veto power enables the Governor to veto distinct items of any bill making appropriations. Colo. Const. art. IV, § 12; see also Lamm II, 704 P.2d at 1383 (With the exception of appropriation bills, therefore, the governor must approve or disapprove a bill in its entirety.). To interpret the presence of an appropriation clause in a substantive bill as an appropriations bill subject to the item veto power would render the distinction between the two veto powers nugatory. The Governor's interpretation would require this court to ignore the plain language of the item veto power that applies only to bills containing multiple appropriations and embracing distinct items. Colo. Const. art. IV, § 12. [10] The item veto power does not apply to any appropriation in any bill; rather, it applies only to those bills that have the primary purpose of making appropriations. See Colo. Const. art. V, § 32 (The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for the expense of the executive, legislative and judicial departments. . . .). In Colorado, the long bills are the only type of legislation with that purpose. See also Bengzon v. Sec'y of Justice of the Philippine Islands, 299 U.S. 410, 413, 57 S.Ct. 252, 81 L.Ed. 312 (1937) (employing primary purpose analysis and holding that a substantive bill with an appropriation is not an appropriations bill qualifying for the item veto power). This interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the item veto provision because that power may only touch upon bills containing several distinct items, rather than single subject bills like House Bill 02-1246. See Perry v. Decker, 457 A.2d 357, 360 (Del.1983). We hold that House Bill 02-1246 is a single subject substantive bill that creates and partially funds a new program, the Education Task Force, and is not a bill fund[ing] programs that have been separately authorized by other legislation. Lamm II, 704 P.2d at 1382. As such, the Governor's item veto of the appropriation made therein is invalid.