Can a Governor veto...

[Sims2789]

...a state legislature's decision to change how it apportions its electors for President and Vice-President. According to the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The California and Hawai'i legislatures both approved the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact but the governors of both states vetoed it.

Since the Constitution seems to suggest that state legislatures, not state governments (i.e., legislatures and executives) determine how their state's electoral votes are apportioned, there are a few possibilities:

*The Governor cannot veto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, since legislatures, not governors, determine how electoral votes are apportioned.

*The Governor can veto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact since it's an interstate compact, but cannot veto legislation directly changing how the state apportions its electoral votes.

*The Governor can veto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, since "Legislature" in the Constitution is interpreted as meaning that the state governments, not just their legislatures, decide how to apportion their electors.

 

[The Yankee]

I suppose it would depend which rule carries the day. Much like how Congress used to be the ones declaring wars.

 

[Godwynn]

...a state legislature's decision to change how it apportions its electors for President and Vice-President. According to the Constitution:



The California and Hawai'i legislatures both approved the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact but the governors of both states vetoed it.

Since the Constitution seems to suggest that state legislatures, not state governments (i.e., legislatures and executives) determine how their state's electoral votes are apportioned, there are a few possibilities:

*The Governor cannot veto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, since legislatures, not governors, determine how electoral votes are apportioned.

*The Governor can veto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact since it's an interstate compact, but cannot veto legislation directly changing how the state apportions its electoral votes.

*The Governor can veto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, since "Legislature" in the Constitution is interpreted as meaning that the state governments, not just their legislatures, decide how to apportion their electors.

You read my blog didn't you?

 

[Sims2789]

You read my blog didn't you?

No, I looked up the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact on Wikipedia and remembered that my dear governor vetoed it, along with Hawai'i's. I then looked up the Electoral College on Wikipedia and noticed that it gives the power to select electors to state legislatures, not the states themselves (i.e., the elected state government, which includes the legislature and the executive.

Give me a link to your blog.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's in your sig.

 

[Godwynn]

No, I looked up the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact on Wikipedia and remembered that my dear governor vetoed it, along with Hawai'i's. I then looked up the Electoral College on Wikipedia and noticed that it gives the power to select electors to state legislatures, not the states themselves (i.e., the elected state government, which includes the legislature and the executive.

Give me a link to your blog.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's in your sig.

The irony is, as I have explained to The Yankee and Integral, I originally made it because I became tired of everyone else making threads/blogs about things I have discussed literally 24 hours earlier. For example that Krugman fellow at the NYT posted a book called The Bush Boom by Jerry Bowyer. I had discussed that same book the day before he made that blog.

So now I have timestamps on everything.

 

[DaveShack]

The state's constitution would determine whether a governor can veto state legislation.

 

[Sims2789]

The state's constitution would determine whether a governor can veto state legislation.

Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors might be a special case. The federal Constitution says that "Legislatures" decide how electors are chosen, not the states themselves. So it doesn't matter if the governor vetoes it if a legislature wants to apportion its state's electors based on the national popular vote if enough other states also agree to it. Similarly, the President can't veto constitutional amendments since they require two-thirds of each house and three-quarters of the state legislatures, not not the President's signature.

 

[The Yankee]

Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors might be a special case. The federal Constitution says that "Legislatures" decide how electors are chosen, not the states themselves. So it doesn't matter if the governor vetoes it if a legislature wants to apportion its state's electors based on the national popular vote if enough other states also agree to it. Similarly, the President can't veto constitutional amendments since they require two-thirds of each house and three-quarters of the state legislatures, not not the President's signature.

Yet the legislature would determine the state constitution.

I say sue for it.

 

[Sims2789]

Yet the legislature would determine the state constitution.

I say sue for it.

The state constitutions of both states do not explicitly give the Governor the right to veto the way the legislature decides to choose electors. The power to veto the way the legislature decides to choose electors is separate from the governor's general veto power as outlined in the state constitution.

 

[downtown]

I think if there was a flavor of bill that could *not* be vetoed by a gov, that it would have to be explicitly spelled out in a state constitution. The Constitution wouldn't spell out the rules for when a Gov could or could not veto, since state constitutions are all fairly different.

My interpretation, for whats its worth, would be that saying "the legislature shall do X" means by virtue of the "state legislative process", which would include all the checks and trapping that a state would allow in its constitution, including a gov. veto.

Sims, did you become a textualist on us? This doesn't seem like your style at all.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

You know what this brings up? Bush v. Gore. A lot of the arguments in that case centered around whether the Florida Supreme Court had co-opted the legislature's role when they interpreted Florida election statutes. The case was eventually decided on the Equal Protection issue, but there was a lot of talk about the clause in the OP. This debate isn't totally weird.

For what it's worth, I think it would have to turn on the interpretation of the federal Constitution, not the state constitutions. downtown's "state legislative process" interpretation is probably strong, but I don't know. For example, it's obvious to me that a state Supreme Court interpreting state election law should be constitutional, but is a veto different? Is there a distinction between state executive action and state judicial action? Since the Supreme Court is merely interpreting the laws duly passed by the state legislature, and didn't strike anything down as having violated the state constitution, I think there is a difference. I'm open to other interpretations, but I'm leaning towards disallowing a gubernatorial veto.

Cleo

 

[emzie]

I think if there was a flavor of bill that could *not* be vetoed by a gov, that it would have to be explicitly spelled out in a state constitution. The Constitution wouldn't spell out the rules for when a Gov could or could not veto, since state constitutions are all fairly different.

My interpretation, for whats its worth, would be that saying "the legislature shall do X" means by virtue of the "state legislative process", which would include all the checks and trapping that a state would allow in its constitution, including a gov. veto.

Sims, did you become a textualist on us? This doesn't seem like your style at all.

I dunno Downtown, if that's the spirit of the US Constitution, it could have been writen as 'the States shall' to include the entire legislative process.

I would say that there's a case to be made.

 

[bhsup]

I think if there was a flavor of bill that could *not* be vetoed by a gov, that it would have to be explicitly spelled out in a state constitution. The Constitution wouldn't spell out the rules for when a Gov could or could not veto, since state constitutions are all fairly different.

My interpretation, for whats its worth, would be that saying "the legislature shall do X" means by virtue of the "state legislative process", which would include all the checks and trapping that a state would allow in its constitution, including a gov. veto.

Sims, did you become a textualist on us? This doesn't seem like your style at all.

That's a pretty solid argument, but being more of a literalist, I think I am going to have to personally come down on the side that says Governors cannot veto this particular type of legislation. I'd liken it to a President not being able to veto a House impeachment.

 

[uppi]

Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors might be a special case. The federal Constitution says that "Legislatures" decide how electors are chosen, not the states themselves. So it doesn't matter if the governor vetoes it if a legislature wants to apportion its state's electors based on the national popular vote if enough other states also agree to it. Similarly, the President can't veto constitutional amendments since they require two-thirds of each house and three-quarters of the state legislatures, not not the President's signature.

But if the state constitution has the governor as a part of the legislative process (e.g. vetoing) he is de facto a part of the Legislative.

(A feature of common law is that courts are also sources of law. So judges have legislative powers and could arguably also determine the electors, if the states constitution allows it.)