The legislature has the constitutional power to override the governor’s veto

Hey, Texplainer: Can the Lege override a governor's veto after a regular session has ended?  

The governor of Texas is the only person with the constitutional authority to veto a bill passed by the state House and the Senate. That authority can be used within 10 days after legislation reaches the governor’s desk during the regular session, or within 20 days of the Legislature’s adjournment. This year, the veto deadline is June 19.

If the governor uses the red stamp during the session, then he or she is required to send that bill, including his or her objections, to the chamber in which the bill originated. Legislators can override the chief executive’s veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. If the governor's veto happens after lawmakers adjourn sine die, the bill is sent to the secretary of state, where it essentially dies and never becomes law.

This year, there are some questions about whether lawmakers might be able to override Gov. Rick Perry’s May 31 veto of HB 2403, a bill that would have allowed the state to collect online sales taxes (from retailers like Amazon). After all, they never had a break and started a special session the day right after the regular session ended.

The question is open to interpretation, but officials in the governor’s office tell the Tribune they do not believe the Legislature can defy Perry’s veto during this special session. Why? The officials say the bill was filed and passed during the regular session. Since that regular session is over, the governor sent the vetoed measure straight to the secretary of state’s office rather than the House, where the bill was created. In a special session, lawmakers can only vote on issues that are included in the governor’s call. In this case, Perry sets the agenda, and lawmakers can’t address issues he leaves out of the call.  

Hugh L. Brady, director of the Legislative Lawyering Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law and author of Texas House Practice, which is considered the authoritative text on House Rules, said the issue is murkier. 

“I don’t think anybody knows what the answer is," Brady said. "I’ve looked at it.” In his view, the state Constitution is clear only in that the Legislature may not override a veto if it is not in session — it doesn't specify whether legislators can only override a veto in the session in which the bill originated.  

“Anybody who says they know the answer probably doesn’t know what they’re talking about," he said. "Nobody really knows.”

But a 1990 report from the Texas Legislative Council, the nonpartisan legislative agency that helps draft bills and provides guidance to the Legislature and state agencies, considered the question and concluded that the Lege does not appear to have the authority to override a veto of a bill passed in a previous session.

"Since the Texas Constitution does not affirmatively grant the legislature the authority to reconsider post-adjournment vetoes at a subsequent session," it wrote in the report, "it appears that the legislature does not have the power to reconsider and override the governor's veto of a bill passed during an immediately preceding session. A strong argument could be made that such legislative action would be unconstitutional."

Bottom line: A real stumper, but it would appear that the governor's view is most likely correct: The Legislature cannot overrule his veto of legislation passed during the regular session once the session is over. And should the Lege do so in this special session, you can bet your Kindle that Amazon will challenge it in court. 

Got a question for Texplainer? Email us at .

Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

A veto is an act of disapproval by an executive that prohibits a bill passed by a legislature from becoming law. Veto overrides occur when a legislature votes to reverse a veto issued by an executive such as a governor or the president.

If one party has a majority in a state legislature that is large enough to override a gubernatorial veto without any votes from members of the minority party, it is called a veto-proof majority or, sometimes, a supermajority.

The vote margin required to override a veto varies by state:

• 36 states require a two-thirds vote.
• Seven states require a three-fifths vote.[1]
• Six states require a majority vote.
• Alaska requires a two-thirds vote from its combined legislative chambers.

After the November 2021 elections, there were 24 state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in both chambers. Sixteen of these state legislatures were controlled by Republicans and eight were controlled by Democrats. In four states—Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Maryland—one party had a veto-proof majority in the legislature and the other party held the governor's office.

Ballotpedia has identified 25 states where legislatures can override vetoes that occur after the adjournment of the regular legislative session during which the bill passed.

Ballotpedia has also identified conflicts between governors and state legislatures related to veto overrides. Read more here.

States with veto-proof majorities

Last updated on Nov. 10, 2021

After the November 2021 elections, there were 24 state legislatures where one party held a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers.[1] Sixteen of the veto-proof legislatures were controlled by the Republican Party and eight were controlled by the Democratic Party.

In states where one party has a veto-proof majority in the state legislature and the other party controls the governor's office, there is potential for conflict. After November 2020, there were four state legislatures where one party had a veto-proof majority in the state legislature and the other party controlled the governor's office. In Maryland and Massachusetts, Democrats had a veto-proof majority in the legislature and a Republican held the governor's office. In Kansas and Kentucky, Republicans had a veto-proof majority in the legislature and a Democrat held the governor's office.

Conflict is not limited to states with split party control of the legislature and the governor's office. It can also arise in states where one party has veto-proof majorities in both chambers and controls the governor's office. For example, in June 2017, the Kansas Legislature overrode Gov. Sam Brownback's (R) veto of a bill related to tax cuts, despite the Republicans having veto-proof majorities in both chambers. Read more below.

Click [show] to see a state-by-state breakdown of which chambers have veto-proof majorities.

Veto override rules in state legislatures

All 50 states give their legislatures the ability to override gubernatorial vetoes. The authority for the override power is always included in a state's constitution, which also specifies how many legislators are needed to override a veto.

• 36 states require a two-thirds vote from both chambers of the legislature.
• Seven states require a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the legislature.[1]
• Six states require a majority vote from both chambers of the legislature.
• Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its legislative chambers.

Ballotpedia has identified six states with rules that change the veto override threshold depending on the type of bill being considered: Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Bills that are subject to special rules are appropriations bills, tax bills, and emergency bills.

Depending on the state, the vote threshold required for a veto override applies to either all members elected to a chamber or to all members present in the chamber. For example, Alabama requires a majority of all elected members to override a veto, so 53 of 105 votes are needed in the state House and 18 votes of 35 votes are needed in the state Senate. Idaho, on the other hand, requires two-thirds of all members present. So, if only 30 of the state Senate's 35 members are present, the threshold to override a veto in that chamber would be 20 votes rather than the 24 that would be required if all elected members were present.

Click [show] to see a state-by-state breakdown of the rules for veto overrides.

Post-adjournment vetoes

Congress cannot override a presidential veto if the veto occurs after adjournment and the president had less than 10 days to consider the bill. This process is described in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

Some states, such as Idaho, have similar rules that prevent legislatures from acting on gubernatorial vetoes that occur post-adjournment.[5] Other states have rules that allow state legislatures to override vetoes in special sessions or during the legislature's next regular session.

This chart shows 25 states that Ballotpedia has identified as having rules that may allow legislatures to override post-adjournment vetoes. The list is not exhaustive.

History of veto overrides

The concept of the veto goes back to antiquity. Veto (Latin for "I forbid") was first used in the Roman Republic, when tribunes, representatives of the common people, were able to nullify actions taken by consuls, who acted as executives with the Roman Republican system. It was also used in pre-1700 England, where the monarch had the power to veto laws passed by Parliament. This power was absolute, as Parliament could not override the monarch's veto. The last veto of a law passed by Parliament was in 1707 when Queen Anne vetoed a bill affecting Scottish militias.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention

In the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, the British government could veto laws passed by colonial assemblies. Colonial governors and the English monarch could both exercise the veto power. Their vetoes were absolute and could not be overridden by colonial assemblies. Between 1696 and 1765, nearly 400 laws passed by colonial assemblies were vetoed. The Declaration of Independence references this in the line, "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

After the colonies declared independence in 1776, state assemblies wanted to move away from the vetoes in the British governance model that had stymied many of their proposals. As such, just three included an executive veto in their constitutions: Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina. The Massachusetts and New York constitutions allowed their state legislatures to override gubernatorial vetoes by a two-thirds vote.

Due to the influence of these state constitutions, veto overrides were debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, where state delegates came together to write the U.S. Constitution. One issue was whether to adopt an absolute veto or give Congress the power to override them. Alexander Hamilton of New York and James Wilson of Virginia, both proponents of a strong executive branch, unsuccessfully argued that the president should have an absolute veto. Both delegates favored a strong executive and, according to Wilson, the absolute veto would rarely have to be used because its "silent operation would therefore preserve harmony and prevent mischief." They lost out to the majority of delegates who were concerned about giving the executive too much power and wanted a strong legislative branch.

Delegates also debated the vote that would be required to override a veto. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina argued for a two-thirds threshold so that the president and a small number of allied senators could not band together to block overrides. Hamilton argued for a three-fourths threshold, arguing that the two-thirds threshold had been ineffective in the New York Legislature. Again, Hamilton's position did not prevail, and the two-thirds threshold was adopted. Thirty-six states adopted the same two-thirds threshold for veto overrides in their constitutions.[20]

All 50 state legislatures and Congress have the ability to override executive vetoes. According to political scientist Robert Spitzer, "The right of Congress to have a final chance at vetoed bills was essential to the checks and balances system [the founders] created."[21] At the state legislative level, the veto override power works the same way.

Statewide comparison

Between 2010 and 2020, governors issued 11,173 complete or partial/line-item vetoes, of which legislatures overrode 578 (5.2%). The map below shows each state based on the percentage of vetoes overridden between 2010 and 2020.

The table below shows the raw totals of vetoes and overrides by state between 2010 and 2020.

Conflict

The veto override power can play a role in conflicts between state legislatures and governors. Conflict can occur when legislatures vote to override gubernatorial vetoes or in court cases related to vetoes and the override power. Although it has the potential to create conflict, the veto override power is rarely used. According to political scientists Peverill Squire and Gary Moncrief in 2010, only about five percent of vetoes are overridden.[22]

Ballotpedia tracks notable examples of conflict involving veto overrides. Ballotpedia began tracking executive conflict in 2017, so the examples included occurred in 2017 or later.

2022

On Feb. 9, 2022, the Kansas State Legislature overrode Gov. Laura Kelly's (D) veto of a bill creating new boundaries for the state's congressional districts. Senate Bill 355 (SB355), also known as Ad Astra 2, drew new lines for Kansas' four congressional districts and was part of redistricting in Kansas following the 2020 United States Census.

Supporters of the bill said that it met standards for redistricting and preserved existing districts. Kansas State Senate leadership, represented by Senate President Ty Masterson (R), Senate Vice President Rick Wilborn (R), and Senate Majority Leader Larry Alley (R), issued a statement soon after Kelly's veto, saying:

Kelly's veto message claimed that the bill's borders did not meet redistricting guidelines. The governor said that the new borders did not follow "established case law and criteria on how to draw Kansas districts," specifically referring to requirements for "protecting communities of interest, preserving the core of existing congressional districts, and ensuring that whole counties are in the same congressional district if possible."[25] Kelly said that the bill "does not follow these guidelines and provides no justification for deviation from these guidelines," writing that "several alternatives would allow for the same deviation as Ad Astra 2 while protecting the core of the existing congressional districts and without diluting minority communities' voting strength."[25]

Kelly vetoed the bill on Feb. 3, 2022. In Kansas, a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

The House overrode the veto by a vote of 85-37, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Rep. Randy Garber (R) joined 36 Democrats in voting to sustain the veto.[26] The Senate overrode the veto a day earlier on Feb. 8, 2022 by a vote of 27-11, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans and all votes against coming from Democrats.[27]

Kentucky

Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) vetoes of redistricting maps

On Jan. 20, 2022, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) vetoes of two bills establishing the state's new congressional and state House maps. House Bill 2 (HB2) set new lines for Kentucky's state House, while Senate Bill 3 (SB3) drew new boundaries for Kentucky's six congressional districts. Both bills were part of Kentucky's redistricting process following the 2020 United States census.

Proponents of the new redistricting plans said they accurately represented Kentucky's population. Kentucky House Speaker David Osborne (R) issued a response to Beshear's vetoes, saying:

Beshear's veto messages alleged that the new redistricting plans were gerrymandering. The governor called HB2 "an unconstitutional political gerrymander that prevents some communities from having their voices heard in Frankfort," and said that it "appears designed to deprive certain communities of representation."[29] On SB3, Beshear again alleged "unconstitutional political gerrymandering."[30] The governor wrote:

Beshear vetoed both bills on Jan. 19, 2022. In Kentucky, a majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

On HB2, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 69-23, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Rep. Lynn Bechler (R) joined 22 Democrats in voting against it.[31] The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 24-10, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. State Sens. Adrienne Southworth (R) and Donald Douglas (R) joined eight Democrats in voting against.[31]

On SB3, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 64-24, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Reps. Jim Gooch (R), Chad McCoy (R), and Walker Thomas (R) joined 21 Democrats in voting against. [32] The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 26-8, with 23 Republicans joined by State Sens. Morgan McGarvey (D), Dennis Parrett (D), and Robin Webb (D) voting in favor. State Sens. Adrienne Southworth (R), Danny Carroll (R), and Jimmy Higdon (R) and five Democrats opposed the override.[32]

Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) vetoes of three bills

On April 13, 2022, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) vetoes of three bills. House Bill 3 (HB3) included provisions that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, restricted the distribution of abortion pills by mail, added new requirements for minors seeking abortions, and created a certification and monitoring system for abortions and physicians that perform them.[33] House Bill 9 (HB9) created funding for public charter schools in the state alongside a pilot program requiring that a charter school be authorized in Louisville and Northern Kentucky by 2023.[34] Senate Bill 83 (SB83) prohibited female-identifying transgender students from participating in school sports by requiring that interscholastic athletics be organized by the biological sex of students and banning students designated as male from participating in sports designated as female.[35]

Proponents of HB3 said that the bill was focused on safety and did not infringe on the right to an abortion. Speaking soon after she filed the bill in February 2022, Rep. Nancy Tate (R), the bill's sponsor, said:

Beshear's veto message for HB3 argued that the bill did infringe on the right to an abortion, also saying that it did not properly fund its programs or create exceptions for rape and incest. The governor said:

Proponents of HB9 said that it was necessary to ensure parent choice and did not force charter schools onto school districts. Speaking on the House floor before the bill was vetoed, Rep. Chad McCoy (R), the bill's primary sponsor, said that the bill's primary change was requiring that the Kentucky Department of Education "tell you why they're denying you or approving you and say why this is or is not something good for the local community" in the event of a charter school applicant appealing a local school board's decision to approve or deny a charter school.[38] McCoy also said that "parents need choice, and this bill gives choice in our public school system."[38]

Beshear's veto message of HB9 alleged that the bill redirected funds meant for existing public schools. The governor argued that it "diverts taxpayer funds away from our already underfunded public schools in the Commonwealth," and that "through House Bill 9, the General Assembly violates its constitutional duty, permitting schools that are not substantially uniform and that do not provide equal education opportunities to all children, and further distributing funds in such a way that each child in the commonwealth will not be able to obtain an adequate education."[39] The governor also said that the legislation "singles out a geographic location or locations for either favorable or disadvantageous treatment" in reference to its pilot program requirement for Louisville and Northern Kentucky.[39]

Proponents of SB83 said that it would protect fairness and equality in women's interscholastic sports. State Sen. Robby Mills (R), one of the bill's co-sponsors, called the bill "a huge win for the integrity of women's sports," claiming that the bill helped Kentucky be "a leading voice for female athletes across the nation."[40] State Sen. Max Wise, another co-sponsor, speaking to Beshear's veto of the bill, said that "a Governor who thinks that decades of females fighting for sports equality & replaced by transgender competition is not tuned into the people of the Commonwealth."[41]

Beshear's veto message of SB83 claimed that the bill unfairly discriminated against students on the basis of gender identity. The governor argued that SB83 overrode the Kentucky High School Athletics Association's existing policies, "inserting the General Assembly into our schools and imposing a complete ban on transgender children to compete in girls' sports.[42] Beshear also said that the bill "most likely violates the equal protection rights afforded by the United States Constitution," and that the bill "bans transgender children from participating in girls' or women's sports without presenting a single instance in Kentucky of a child gaining a competitive advantage as a result of sex reassignment."[42]

Beshear vetoed SB83 on April 6, 2022, HB9 on April 7, 2022, and HB3 on April 8, 2022. In Kentucky, a majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate. The votes on the three bills were part of a set of 22 successful veto overrides on the second-to-last day of the state's 2022 legislative session.[43]

On HB3, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 76-21. Democratic Reps. Angie Hatton and Ashley Tackett Laferty joined 74 Republicans in voting in favor.[44] All votes against the measure came from Democrats. The Senate overrode the veto later that day by a vote of 31-6. Democratic State Sens. Dennis Parrett and Robin Webb joined 29 Republicans in voting in favor of the veto. All votes against came from Democrats.[44]

On HB9, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 52-45. All votes in favor came from Republicans.[45] Twenty-two Republicans joined 24 Democrats in voting against. The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 22-15, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans.[45] Seven Republicans joined eight Democrats in voting against.

On SB83, the House overrode the veto by a vote of 72-23. Democratic Reps. Angie Hatton and Ashley Tackett Laferty joined 70 Republicans in voting in favor.[46] Republican Rep. Killian Timoney joined 22 Democrats in voting against the veto. The Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 29-8, with Democratic State Sens. Dennis Parrett and Robin Webb joining 27 Republicans in voting in favor. Republican State Sens. Alice Kerr and Wil Schroder joined six Democrats in voting against.[46]

Louisiana

Republican-controlled Legislature overrides Gov. John Bel Edwards' (D) veto of redistricting maps

On March. 30, 2022, the Louisiana State Legislature overrode Gov. John Bel Edwards' veto of a bill creating new boundaries for the state's six congressional districts. House Bill 1 (HB1) was part of the state legislature's first extraordinary session of 2022 and drew new lines for Louisiana's congressional map as part of redistricting in Louisiana following the 2020 United States Census.

Supporters of the bill said that it complied with regulations and accurately represented the demographics of Louisiana. House Speaker Clay Schexnayder (R), the bill's sponsor, issued a statement after the override, claiming that HB1 "fulfills our constitutionally mandated duty to redistrict congress," and "shows true legislative independence and a clear separation of power from the executive branch."[47] State Sen. Sharon Hewitt (R), chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee, claimed that the bill "complies with the Voting Rights Act, and all federal and state legal requirements."[48][49]

Edwards' veto message argued that HB1 did not fairly represent the state, specifically claiming an underrepresentation of its black population. The governor said:

Edwards vetoed the bill on March 9, 2022. In Louisiana, a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had a veto-proof majority in the Senate, but were two seats short of the 70 needed to form a veto-proof majority in the House. Because the bill was vetoed after the special session had adjourned, an automatic veto session was called for the legislature to vote on an override.

The House overrode the veto by a vote of 72-31, with all Republicans and the chamber's three Independents, Reps. Roy Adams, Malinda White, and Joseph Marino, voting in favor.[51] All votes against the override came from Democrats. The Senate overrode the veto later that day by a vote of 27-11, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans and all votes against coming from Democrats.[52]

The veto override represented the first time since 1991 that the Louisiana State Legislature overturned a governor's veto against the governor's will.[53]

Maryland

Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) vetoes of 11 bills

On April 9, 2022, the Maryland General Assembly overrode 11 vetoes made by Gov. Larry Hogan (R). The vetoes were for the following bills:

HB90 allowed collective bargaining agreements for lawyers at the Maryland Office of the Public Defender and required that a cause be given in order to fire or discipline a public defender.[54] The bill's sponsor, Del. Shaneka Henson (D), claimed that collective bargaining was necessary to empower public defenders in the state. In a statement after the veto, she said that "an attorney's primary responsibility should always be to their client, not an appointed official."[55]

HB580 allowed collective bargaining agreements for sergeants and supervisors of the Maryland Transit Administration Police.[54]

Speaking to his veto of both HB90 and HB580, Hogan said that "these pieces of legislation seek to alter labor practices that have worked for decades, while creating several burdensome fiscal an operational hardships."[56]

HB609 required that a written explanation and opportunity for a hearing be provided by the Maryland Secretary of Health if a local health officer is fired.[54] Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D), the bill's sponsor, said that the bill worked "to protect our public health officials from undue political influence," and that "it is imperative that we guide our policy by science."[57] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill "creates dangerous precedent and significantly undermines the voters and the Maryland Constitution, which entrusts the executive branch with making appointments to critical government roles."[56]

HB778 and SB514 required that the Maryland Transit Administration make investments in the Maryland Area Regional Commuter Cornerstone Plan and other commuter train improvements.[58] Del. Jared Solomon (D), HB778's lead sponsor, said that the bill was a response to the "once-in-a-generation opportunity to access billions of dollars at the federal level," and that it "very specifically mandates actual investments."[59] In his veto message, Hogan said that, while he was "supportive of the intent of this legislation to improve transit," he did not see the bill as improving transit "in a fiscally responsible manner and in one that does not limit the MDOT's ability to adapt to evolving conditions."[56]

HB937, or the Abortion Care Access Act, enabled nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform abortions and required that private insurance plans that are not exempt cover abortions without cost-sharing or deductibles as well as providing $3.5 million to train health care professionals for reproductive services. [58] Del. Ariana Kelly (D), the bill's lead sponsor, said that "the strategies that this bill is using is ensuring that people can access the care that they need, when they need it, no matter what happens with the rest of the country — no matter what happens with the Supreme Court."[60] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill "endangers the health and lives of women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions," and that "these procedures are complex and can, and often do, result in significant medical complications that require the care of a licensed physician."[54]

HB1021 required alarm systems and other safety measures in businesses that sell firearms.[54] Maryland House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D), the bill's sponsor, said that its intent was to keep "firearms out of the hands of criminals," and that "the measures have proven to be a success" when implemented on a local level.[61] In his veto message, Hogan said that "this legislation was fast-tracked in the Senate, where there was essentially no opportunity for the public to weigh in, and reasonable amendments that would have made the bill more palatable for the industry and stakeholders were essentially ignored and discarded without meaningful consideration."[56]

SB1 allowed Maryland Department of Labor's commissioner of labor and industry to issue stop work orders to contractors and subcontractors that may have violated the state's prevailing wage law.[54] State Sen. Pamela Beidle (D), the bill's lead sponsor, claimed that the bill addressed the 887 violations in fiscal year 2021 and 1,394 in 2020.[62] Hogan said that the bill "may negatively impact the prevailing wage system, make contractors less likely to want to perform prevailing wage work, and could result in less competition and increased pricing on public works projects" in his veto message.[56]

SB53 prohibited law enforcement officers from conducting custodial interrogation of a child without first allowing the child to consult with an attorney.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many Sen. Jill Carter (D), the bill's sponsor, called it “a giant step in the direction of protecting all of our children,” and claimed that it children did not fully understand their rights and may be susceptible to false confessions.[63] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill "fails to strike an appropriate balance that protects the youth and public safety of the state."[56]

SB259 expanded prevailing wage requirements for state-funded service contracts for mechanical services.[54] In his veto message, Hogan said that "by making public work projects more expensive, job opportunities will decrease as less projects are funded; competition will falter as smaller firms are deterred from bidding on State contracts; and ultimately, taxpayers will end up paying more while receiving less."[56]

SB275, or the Time to Care Act of 2022, offered 12 weeks of partially paid family leave per year to provide care to themselves or a sick relative and 24 weeks of paid leave for new parents.[54] Sen. Antonio Hayes (D), the bill's lead sponsor, said that the bill was "really in support of many Maryland families who just gave birth to a child or served as a caregiver."[62] In his veto message, Hogan said that the bill defined the category of small business too narrowly and claimed that it "is backed by no actuarial analysis, no viable plan for implementation, and leaves the smallest of small businesses vulnerable to insurmountable regulatory burdens."[56]

Hogan vetoed the bills on April 8, 2022. In Maryland, a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

The table below shows the votes to override Hogan's vetoes broken down by chamber. At the time of the overrides, Democrats held 99 seats in the House and Republicans held 42. In the Senate, Democrats held 32 seats to Republicans' 15.

Nebraska

Republican-controlled Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) partial veto of budget bills

On April 7, 2022, the unicameral Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' line item veto of portions of three different budget bills. The portion of LB1011 vetoed by Ricketts included $51.8 million in funding for four programs in the state's Department of Health and Human Services and two programs in the state's judicial system.[64] The portion vetoed in LB1012 moved $15 million from the Prison Overcrowding Contingency Fund to the Life Skills Programming fund and established $4.8 million for community apprenticeship and restorative justice programs.[64] The governor's line item veto of LB1012 also removed a $14 million transfer from the Governor's Emergency Cash Fund to the Cash Reserve Fund in order to help hospitals during the coronavirus pandemic; the state senate did not attempt to override this portion of the veto.[65] The line item veto of LB1013 removed $4.15 million of the $8.3 million originally dedicated to the completion of the MoPac trail bike path between Omaha and Lincoln.[64]

Supporters of the three original bills said that they were fiscally responsible uses of the state's surplus. Nebraska Speaker of the Legislature Mike Hilgers (R) claimed that the proposed budget, including the portions vetoed by the governor, would accomplish "a significant trifecta" by funding the state's priorities, allowing for the largest tax cut in state history, and leaving $1.3 billion in the state's cash reserve.[65] Speaking to the budget as a whole, Hilgers said:

Ricketts' veto message argued that the portions vetoed spent too much money to allow for tax cuts. The governor said:

Ricketts submitted his line item vetoes on April 4, 2022. Nebraska is one of 44 states in which governors can veto individual line items of a legislative budget. In Nebraska, a three-fifths majority of 30 votes or more in the state's single chamber is required to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans had a veto-proof majority in the Nebraska State Senate.

On both LB1011 and LB1012, the Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 42-3. Fifteen Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor of the overrides, with Republican State Sens. Joni Albrecht, Steve Halloran, and John Lowe voting against.[68][69]

On LB1013, the Senate overrode the veto by a vote of 41-5. Fifteen Democrats and 26 Republicans voted in favor of the override. Republican State Sens. Joni Albrecht, Steve Halloran, Curt Friesen, Steve Erdman, and John Lowe voted against it.[70]

Utah

Republican-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Spencer Cox's (R) veto of a bill prohibiting transgender student athletes from competing in interscholastic female sports

On March 25, 2022, the Utah State Legislature overrode Gov. Spencer Cox's (R) veto of a bill regulating student participation in sports. House Bill 11 (H.B. 11) prohibited transgender athletes that are designated to be of the male sex as "determined by an individual's genetics and anatomy at birth" from participating in interscholastic female sports.[71] The bill also outlined a commission to determine the eligibility of transgender athletes on a case-by-case basis in the event of court action to overturn the ban.

Supporters of the bill said that it protected the integrity of women's sports in the state. Utah State Senate leadership issued a statement soon after the veto override, including a quote from State Sen. Curt Bramble (R), the bill's Senate sponsor:

Cox's veto message claimed that the bill had undergone last-minute changes that were unnecessary and potentially harmful. The governor said that the decision to institute a ban instead of a commission to determine eligibility for athletes "was never discussed, never contemplated, never debated, and never received any public input prior to the Legislature passing the bill on the 45th and final night of the session."[73] Cox said that a commission, rather than a ban, "would attempt to both protect women's sports and allow our most vulnerable an opportunity to participate," also claiming that "rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few" in reference to what he said was "4 transgender kids playing high school sports in Utah." [73]

Cox vetoed the bill on March 22, 2022. In Utah, a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers is required to override a veto. Because the bill was vetoed after the state legislature's 2022 regular session had ended, a special session meant to address the veto was called by Cox on March 25, 2022. At the time of the veto, Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

The House overrode the veto by a vote of 56-18, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. Reps. Robert Spendlove (R) and Mike Winder (R) joined 16 Democrats in voting to sustain the veto.[74] The Senate overrode the veto later that day by a vote of 21-8, with all votes in favor coming from Republicans. State Sens. Todd Weiler (R) and Daniel Thatcher (R) joined 6 Democrats in voting to sustain the veto.[75]

2021

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R)

On April 6, 2021, the Arkansas General Assembly overrode Gov. Asa Hutchinson's (R) veto of House Bill 1570 (H.B. 1570), a bill prohibiting physicians and healthcare professionals from providing chemical or surgical gender reassignment treatments—including hormone therapy and puberty blockers—to individuals under the age of 18.[76] The bill also prohibits providers from referring minors elsewhere in order to receive such treatments.[77] Gender reassignment treatment, also known as gender affirming treatment, refers to the process of changing a person's body either through surgical procedures or the use of hormones to conform with their gender identity.[78]

Proponents of the bill said it would protect children and encouraged mental health services as an alternative to surgical or chemical treatment.[79][77] Senate Majority Leader Scott Flippo (R) described the prohibited treatments as "something that oftentimes could be irreversible," adding that "it is not simply too much to ask to let [children's] minds develop and mature a little bit before they make what could be a very permanent and life-changing decision."[79]

In his veto announcement, Hutchinson described H.B. 1570 as overbroad, saying the bill would create "new standards of legislative interference with physicians and parents as they deal with some of the most complex and sensitive matters involving young people. ... This would be, and is, a vast government overreach."[80] Hutchinson also repeated statements made by Arkansas medical associations, saying, "denying best medical care to transgender youth can lead to significant harm to the young person."[80]

Hutchinson vetoed H.B. 1570 on April 5, 2021. In Arkansas, a simple majority of votes is required to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held veto-proof majorities in both the state House and Senate.

In the House, 71 of the chamber's 78 Republicans voted to override the veto. Three Republicans—Reps. Craig Christiansen, Lee Johnson, and Spencer Hawks—joined 21 of the chamber's 22 Democrats in opposition. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote, resulting in a final vote of 71-24 in favor of the override.

In the Senate, 25 of the chamber's 27 Republicans voted to override the veto. All seven Democrats and one independent voted in opposition to the override. Two Republicans did not vote, resulting in a final vote of 25-8.

Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D)

Hawaii

Democratic-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. David Ige's (D) veto of tourism funding bill

On July 6, 2021, the Hawaii State Legislature overrode Gov. David Ige’s (D) veto of Bill 826 (H.B. 826), which changed the funding structure of the Hawaii Tourism Agency. At the time of the veto, the agency was funded, in part, through a tax on hotel and short-term rental stays. Additionally, the state's four major counties received a share of the revenue from the tax, which was a uniform rate across the state. H.B. 826 preserved the tax but ended the tourism agency's funding arrangement with lawmakers intending to fund the agency through the state's general fund. The bill also gave the counties the ability to set and levy their own surcharges to the tax.[81]

Proponents of the bill said it prevented allocating specific funds to the benefit of one industry and promoted greater communication from the Hawaii Tourism Authority. Sen. Bennette Misalucha (D) said “It is part of the checks and balances in state government ... at the end of the day, we would like to support HTA and be their partners to support a good tourism platform. This can be possible with greater transparency and accountability."[82]

In his veto announcement, Ige said H.B. 826 would damage the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s ability to manage tourists who come to the islands. Ige said, “There really is no other state agency that is positioned to be able to identify the hotspots in every community, work with county and state, as well as private sector individuals, to really identify solutions and hopefully be able to fund them — at least on a pilot basis — so we can determine and mitigate the impact of the visitors coming here.”[83]

Ige vetoed H.B. 862 on July 6, 2021.[84] H.B. 862 was one of 26 bills he vetoed.[85] In Hawaii, a two-thirds majority is required to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats held veto-proof majorities in both the state House and Senate.

The House and Senate both voted to override the veto on July 6, 2021. In the House, 38 representatives, 37 Democrats and one Republican, voted to override the veto. Eight representatives, five Democrats and three Republicans, voted to uphold the veto. Four members, all Democrats, were excused.[86] In the Senate, 17 Senators, all Democrats, voted to override the veto. Eight Senators, seven Democrats and one Republican, voted to uphold the veto.[87]

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D)

Illinois

Democratic-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. J.B. Pritzker's (D) veto of ambulance services bill

On Aug. 31, 2021, members of the Illinois General Assembly overrode Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker’s veto of House Bill 684 (H.B. 684).[88] H.B. 684 modified the payment structure of state ambulance services by exempting them from the state’s managed care medical assistance program, a program wherein private insurance companies oversee Medicaid services. Instead, ambulances would be paid for under the state's fee-for-service program directly billing the Department of Healthcare and Family Services for non-emergency trips.[89][90]

Proponents of the bill said that the existing payment structure led private insurance companies to arbitrarily deny claims resulting in delays with payment.[90] Jackson County Ambulance Company Director Kenton Schafer said, "If we get our money in a timely basis, that allows us to pay our staff, that allows us to hire more staff, that allows us to have more staff on call, more staff on duty.”[90] Rep. Robyn Gabel (D), a sponsor of H.B. 864, said “The [managed care organizations] just were simply not paying [the EMS’] bills.”[91]

Discussing his veto, Pritzker said the bill would have disrupted patient safety and impose cost issues. Pritzker, in his veto message, said the bill “has the potential to disrupt care and reduce the quality of provided medical transportation services to some of the most vulnerable Illinoisans.”[92]

Pritzker originally vetoed the bill on Aug. 27, 2021.[88] Illinois is one of seven states that requires a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the legislature to override a veto. At the time of the veto, the Democratic Party held a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers.

The bill originally passed unanimously in both chambers and the veto was overridden unanimously in the Senate and with only one member of the House—Rep. Mary Flowers (D)—voting to uphold Pritzker's veto.[92]

This was Pritzker's first veto overridden by the state legislature since he assumed office in 2019.

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R)

Indiana

Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of landlord-tenant bill

On Feb. 17, 2021, the Indiana General Assembly overrode Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of Senate Bill 148, a bill prohibiting cities from regulating the rental relationship between tenants and landlords. According to the Indianapolis Star's Kaitlin Lange, the bill was introduced after the City of Indianapolis "announced a new effort to educate tenants on their rights and take retaliatory landlords to court." Lange said that, under the bill, "cities will be prohibited from regulating most aspects of landlord-tenant relationships, essentially gutting the Indianapolis' initiatives."[93]

Senate Bill 148 was introduced during the 2020 legislative session. Holcomb vetoed the bill on March 25, 2020. In Indiana, a simple majority of votes is required to override a gubernatorial veto.

Proponents of the bill said it was intended to create a uniform, statewide set of rules. State Rep. Aaron Freeman (R) said, "throughout the state you have a hodgepodge ... of landlord-tenant zoning matters ... This bill seeks to clarify ... and standardize those and set one kind of floor for landlord-tenant issues in the state."[93]

At the time Holcomb vetoed the bill in 2020, Indiana was near the start of the coronavirus pandemic. In a 2020 letter explaining his veto, Holcomb said, "While I understand the bill was intended to create uniformity between state and local law ... I believe this is not the right time for such language to become law."[94] In 2021, following the vote to override his veto, Holcomb added, "To be sure, we are still navigating through a once-in-a-century pandemic and therefore I still believe this is not the right time for that overly broad language to have become law."[94]

At the time of the veto and of the override, Republicans controlled the Indiana State Senate and Indiana House of Representatives. The Senate voted to override the veto on Feb. 8, 2021. Thirty Republican Senators approved the override and seventeen Senators—eight Republicans and nine Democrats—voted to uphold the veto. Three Senators—two Democrats and one Republican—did not vote.[95] The House voted to override the veto on Feb. 17, 2021, with 67 Republicans supporting the override and four Republicans joining all 29 Democrats voting to uphold the veto.[96]

This was Holcomb's first veto overridden by the General Assembly since he assumed office in 2017.[93]

Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of local health rules approval bill

On May 10, 2021, the Indiana General Assembly overrode Gov. Eric Holcomb's (R) veto of Senate Bill 5 (S.B. 5). Under S.B. 5, local orders addressing aspects of state executive orders may not be more strict than the state executive order unless the stricter local orders are approved by local elected officials.[97] Under previous state law, local health officers had the authority to set stricter standards than those issued through state executive orders when dealing with emergencies without prior approval.[98] Media commentary said S.B. 5 was passed in response to local health orders regarding the coronavirus pandemic that were stricter than those ordered at the state level. Holcomb issued an executive order requiring a statewide mask mandate in response to the pandemic on July 27, 2020. The order expired on April 6, 2021. According to The Associated Press' Tom Davies, S.B. 5's provisions "would include mask mandates now in place for cities including Indianapolis, South Bend, Elkhart, and Bloomington" which remained in effect following the expiration of the state executive order.[98]

Proponents of the bill said it was designed to add accountability at the local level. State Rep. Alan Morrison (R) said, "We want our officials to have to answer to the citizens ... When we're dealing with health departments that are not elected, we have to somehow figure out a way to hold them accountable and that's through our elected officials."[99]

Holcomb vetoed S.B. 5 on May 4, 2021. In his veto message, Holcomb wrote, "Critical to [Indiana's] success [in responding to the coronavirus pandemic] has been the ability during the emergency to allow local health officers (LHOs) to use localized data to tailor their actions to their community's needs." Holcomb added that he vetoed S.B. 5 because, "I believe it will undermine the successful balance described above, restrict necessary flexibility in the law, and further undermine local responses to future public health emergencies."[100] Read the full veto message here.

In Indiana, a simple majority of votes is required to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans controlled the Indiana State Senate and Indiana House of Representatives. In the Senate, 36 Republican senators voted to override the veto and ten Democratic senators voted against the override. Three Republicans and one Democrat were excused. In the House, 59 Republican representatives voted to override the veto. Three Republicans—Thomas Saunders, Harold Slager, and Cindy Meyer Ziemke—joined 27 Democrats voting against the override. Eleven representatives—nine Republicans and two Democrats—were excused.[101]

This was Holcomb's second veto overridden by the General Assembly since he assumed office in 2017.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D)

Kentucky

Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) partial veto of a bill eliminating mask requirements in public K-12 schools

On Sept. 9, 2021, the Kentucky General Assembly voted to override Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s partial veto of Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), which modified several aspects of public school district operations. The portion vetoed by Beshear eliminated mask requirements in public K-12 schools. Beshear had previously released an executive order requiring masks inside of public and private schools on Aug. 10, 2021.[102][103]

Proponents of the bill said it allowed for necessary operational flexibility in public school districts to tailor learning experiences to students. Sen. Max Wise (R), voted for the original bill, saying, “This bill will give local control back to the districts, not mandating they [do], not mandating they don’t. They make the decisions on what they feel is best for their constituents.”[104]

Beshear and other opponents of S.B. 1 said it would weaken efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 during surges. Following the override, Beshear spoke at a press conference saying, “Am I frustrated that something that has stopped every other surge we can't now use? Yes, because that's going to harm a lot of people. But is this going to stop us from figuring out every other thing we can do? No, we're going to keep pushing."[105]

S.B. 1 originally passed through the Senate with a vote of 28-8 and the House with a vote of 70-25 on Sept. 9, 2021, during the legislature’s special session. Beshear issued his partial veto the same day, with the General Assembly overriding his veto roughly an hour later.

In Kentucky, an elected majority is required to override a gubernatorial veto. In the Senate, 21 Senators, all Republicans, voted to override the veto. Six senators, five Democrats and one Republican—Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr—voted to uphold the veto. Ten senators—7 Republicans and 3 Democrats—did not vote.[106]In the House, one Democrat—Rep. Angie Hatton—joined 69 Republicans to override the veto. One Republican—Rep. Killian Timoney—joined 24 Democrats to uphold the veto. Three representatives did not vote.[107]

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R)

Maryland

Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of education funding and policy bill

On Feb. 12, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly overrode Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of House Bill 1300 (H.B. 1300), a bill implementing a ten-year education funding and policy plan developed by the Maryland Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, also known as the Kirwan Commission. According to the Associated Press' Brian Witte:[108]

Hogan vetoed the bill on May 7, 2020. In his veto letter, Hogan referenced the negative effect the coronavirus pandemic had on Maryland's economy. Hogan wrote, "The economic fallout from this pandemic simply makes it impossible to fund any new programs, impose any new tax hikes, nor adopt any legislation having any significant fiscal impact."[109] Following the General Assembly's vote to override his veto, Hogan released a video message, saying, "[H.B. 1300] will impose crippling tax hikes on Marylanders who are already struggling to recover from this unprecedented pandemic. ... It's all taxes and no results."[110]

Proponents of H.B. 1300 said the legislation would prepare Maryland's students for the future. Following the veto override, Brit Kirwan, the chair of the commission that developed the legislation, said, "desperately needed resources will now flow to the schools and children across the state, including an army of tutors, a significant expansion of community schools and preschools, greater support for teachers and much, much more."[111] Regarding the legislation's implementation costs, Senate President Bill Ferguson (D) said, "I feel very confident that we are in a very sustainable place and we are not looking for additional revenue at this point." Ferguson said the programs would be funded through at least Fiscal Year 2026 with additional funding possible through other means such as tobacco tax increases and a tax on digital services such as streaming among others.[112]

The Maryland State Senate voted to override the veto along party lines with all 15 Republicans voting against the override and 31 Democrats voting in favor. One Democrat, Joanne Benson (D) was absent.[113] The Maryland House of Delegates also voted to override the veto along party lines with 38 Republicans voting against the override and 97 Democrats voting in favor. Four Republicans and one Democrat were absent and one seat was vacant at the time of the vote.[114]

At the time of the veto override, Maryland was one of four states where one party held a veto-proof majority in the legislature and the opposing party controlled the governorship.

Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) vetoes of four criminal justice and law enforcement bills

On April 10, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly overrode four of Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) vetoes regarding the following series of criminal justice and law enforcement bills:

• Senate Bill 71 (S.B. 71): mandating body-camera use for on-duty law enforcement officers by 2025, establishing systems to identify officers at risk of using excessive force, providing responses to reduce such risk, and developing a statewide use-of-force policy.
• Senate Bill 178 (S.B. 178): changing regulations and requirements for the execution of no-knock search warrants and altering public records laws to allow certain law enforcement officer misconduct records to be reviewable by the public.
• Senate Bill 494 (S.B. 494): prohibiting life sentences for minors and altering state law regarding sentencing guidelines and remedies for individuals convicted as an adult for offenses committed as a minor.
• House Bill 670 (H.B. 670): repealing the "Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights," prohibiting officers from preventing citizens from recording their actions, and requiring each county to establish its own police accountability board.

Hogan vetoed S.B. 494 on April 8, 2021. In his veto letter, Hogan opposed the bill because he said that it could contribute to re-traumatization of victims, that it was partly duplicative, and that it could lead to the potential release of dangerous individuals.[115] Hogan wrote:

Sen. Chris West (R), a proponent, said, "This bill carefully protects the interests of both the state and the victim," saying that any sentence reduction would require a hearing where the state would be represented by the State's Attorney and the victim or his or her representative would be provided the opportunity to testify.[116] West added, "Any human being who reaches his 37th birthday is a different person than he was at the age of 17 ... Keeping someone in prison who committed a youthful crime and who has spent decades in jail but has reformed his life and is no longer a threat to society is hard to defend."[116]

Hogan vetoed the remaining three bills—S.B. 71, S.B. 178, and H.B. 670—on April 9, 2021. In his veto letter covering all three bills, Hogan said, "These bills would undermine the goal that I believe we share of building transparent, accountable, and effective law enforcement institutions and instead further erode police morale, community relationships, and public confidence." He added, "They will result in great damage to police recruitment and retention, posing significant risks to public safety throughout our state."[117]

House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D), a proponent of the bills, wrote:

The table below shows the votes to override Hogan's vetoes broken down by chamber. At the time of the overrides, Democrats held 99 seats in the House and Republicans held 42. In the Senate, Democrats held 32 seats to Republicans' 15.

Democratic-controlled General Assembly overrides Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) veto of Maryland's congressional redistricting map

On Dec. 9, 2021, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) veto of House Bill 1 (HB 1), the legislative plan to redistrict Maryland's eight U.S. House districts.[119] Prior to the passage of HB 1, Hogan had indicated he would veto any congressional map that differed from the map produced by the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, a group established by Gov. Hogan.[120] The commission's proposed map was not put to a vote in the General Assembly.[120] According to David Collins of WBAL-TV, "The map allows Democrats to hold seven of the state's eight congressional seats and the First District on the Eastern Shore, held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, becomes more competitive."[121]

Proponents of the congressional map said it was produced in a transparent manner and fulfilled legal obligations. Sen. Majority Leader Nancy King (D) said, "Maryland's geography is unique, and our population is varied ... Taking all that into consideration, I am confident that this map is a fair one, and one that reflects the lived experience of Marylanders."[120] Sen. Craig Zucker (D) said, “the bottom line is this was a transparent, fair process.”[122]  

Hogan said the congressional maps were gerrymandered and violated federal law. In a press conference, he said, "This congressional map done in back rooms by party bosses in Annapolis makes a mockery of our democracy and it is an embarrassment to all that our state stands for," adding, "I think gerrymandering is a cancer on our democracy."[123] In his veto letter, Hogan said the congressional map "will join the maps of recent election cycles that have resulted in numerous lawsuits."[124]

Hogan vetoed HB 1 on Dec. 9, 2021. Maryland requires a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the legislature to override a veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats held a veto-proof majority in both chambers.

In the House, 96 of the chamber's 98 Democrats voted to override Hogan's veto. One Democrat—Del. Gabriel Acevero (D)—joined 40 of the 42 Republicans to sustain Hogan's veto. The Senate voted 32-14 in favor of overriding the veto along party lines.[123]

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R)

Massachusetts

Democratic-controlled General Court overrides Gov. Charlie Baker's (R) veto of regional transit funding bill

On July 29, 2021, the Massachusetts General Court voted to override Gov. Charlie Baker’s (R) veto of Senate Bill 2277 (SB 2277), which increased funding to the Massachusetts Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) by 3.9%, from $90.5 million in 2021 to $94 million.[125] The bill also allowed future appropriations to increase with inflation.[126] Baker's line-item veto, issued on July 16, targeted only the funding increase portion of SB 2277, not the portion tying future increases to inflation.[125]

Proponents of the bill said the increase in funding was necessary to accommodate the need for public transport among Massachusetts residents. MassPIRG's John Stout said in a press release, “with $94 million in base funding, the Commonwealth will be able to build a transportation system that meets our 21st century needs.”[125] Sen. Harriette Chandler (D), the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, said, “If [Massachusetts residents] did not have an RTA and if we do not choose to invest in our RTAs, the people who rely on them will have no other option.”[127]

In his veto message, Gov. Baker said “the RTAs received approximately $214 million as part of the CARES Act, $39 million from CRRSA, and more than $165 million from ARPA … As a result, all 15 RTAs ended FY21 with significant cash reserves. Because of the significant amount of federal and state funding dispensed to RTAs recently and the continuing need to incentivize improved RTA performance, I am recommending that the distribution revert to my House 1 recommendation of $90.5 million, with $3.5 million distributed as performance grants.”[128]

Massachusetts requires a ⅔ present majority in both chambers to override a veto.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R)

Nebraska

Republican-controlled State Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of public school retirement plan management bill

On May 26, 2021, the Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of Legislative Bill 147 (L.B. 147), which transferred management of the Omaha Public Schools (OPS) retirement plan from the OPS to the Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems (NPERS), the state's retirement system for active, inactive, and retired educators, state employees, police employees, and judges in Nebraska.[129] The bill gave NPERS management over the OPS retirement plan with a starting in 2024. The bill also specified that the NPERS would not be subject to liabilities under this arrangement.[130]

Proponents of the bill said that transferring the management of the OPS retirement fund would result in an annual management cost savings of about $250,000. According to an article in Pensions and Investments Online, State Sen. Mark Kolterman (R) said that the state would not assume financial responsibility or liability for OPS' funding shortfall.[131]

In his veto announcement, Ricketts said the bill would hold the state responsible for OPS' budget shortfall. Ricketts said, "The $848 million of unfunded liabilities in the OPS plan exceeds the significant and generous amount of nearly $790 million of property tax relief we all worked exceptionally hard to ensure will be provided for taxpayers next year. Funding the cost of taking over liability will come at the expense of increasing future property tax relief."[132]

Ricketts vetoed the bill on May 24, 2021. In Nebraska, the unicameral Senate needs 30 votes, a three-fifths majority, to override a gubernatorial veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

The Senate voted to override the veto on May 26, 2021. Thirty-one Senators, all 17 Democrats and 14 Republicans, approved the override and 18 Senators, all Republicans, voted to uphold the veto.[133][134]

Republican-controlled State Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of federally funded food assistance bill

On May 26, 2021, the Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of Legislative Bill 108 (L.B. 108), which raised the income limit for federally funded food assistance from 130% of the federal poverty level to 165% of the federal poverty level for two years.[135]

Proponents of the bill argued that Nebraska residents needed the expanded assistance. State Sen. Terrell McKinney (D) said, "These people aren’t lazy. They need these resources. If you speak from a place of privilege, and you never grew up poor, have some empathy.”[136]

In his veto announcement, Ricketts said L.B. 108 could discourage unemployed Nebraska residents from returning to work following the coronavirus pandemic. Ricketts said, "small Nebraska businesses cannot hire staff, and they are struggling to stay open or re-open," adding, "We should remove any incentives that would slow reopening ... Whether intended or not, LB 108 discourages Nebraskans from returning to work."[137]

Ricketts vetoed the bill on May 24, 2021. In Nebraska, the unicameral legislature needs 30 votes, a three-fifths majority, to pass a bill over a governor's veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held veto-proof majorities in the Senate.

The Senate voted to override the veto on May 26, 2021. Thirty Senators, all 17 Democrats and 13 Republicans, approved the override and 19 Senators, all Republicans, voted to uphold the veto.[133][138]

Republican-controlled State Senate overrides Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of federally-funded heating assistance bill

On May 26, 2021, the Nebraska State Senate overrode Gov. Pete Ricketts' (R) veto of Legislative Bill 306 (L.B. 306), which raised the income limit for Nebraska’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) from 130% of the federal poverty level to 150%.[139] The LIHEAP, administered by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, distributes assistance to offset home energy costs in low-income households.[140]

Proponents of the bill said L.B. 306 would increase the efficiency of the heating program.[141] State Sen. Tom Brandt (R), who introduced the bill, said "LB306 will make the program more efficient by eliminating the supplemental payments away from those customers who do not need them and reallocating the funds to more people who actually need assistance."[141]

In his veto announcement, Ricketts said L.B. 306 would put the state's LIHEAP program at risk of running out of federal funding and instead said he supported temporary increases:[142]

Ricketts vetoed the bill on May 24, 2021. In Nebraska, the unicameral legislature needs 30 votes, a three-fifths majority, to pass a bill over a governor's veto. At the time of the veto, Republicans held veto-proof majorities in the Senate.

The Senate voted to override the veto on May 26, 2021. Thirty-two Senators, all 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans, approved the override and 15 Senators, all Republicans, voted to uphold the veto. Two Senators, both Republicans, did not vote.[143]

2020

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D)

On April 14, 2020, the Kentucky General Assembly overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's (D) veto of a voter identification bill. According to The Associated Press, "The measure would require Kentucky residents to produce a photo ID when voting, with limited exceptions, starting with the November [2020] election."[144] Proponents of the bill said it would prevent voter fraud with the bill's sponsor, Sen. Robby Mills (R), saying it would add "guardrails in our voting procedures that will help cure vulnerabilities that exist."[144] According to the Courier-Journal, opponents said the bill "would create an unnecessary barrier to voting ... pointing out that there is no documented case of voter fraud through impersonation in Kentucky."[145]

Beshear vetoed the bill on April 3, 2020. In his veto message, he said, "the provisions of the law would create an obstacle to the ability of Kentuckians to exercise their right to vote."[146] He also cited the coronavirus pandemic saying the bill "would also likely threaten the health and safety of Kentuckians by requiring them to obtain identification during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic."[146]

Mills, responding to Beshear's objections, said, "I am sure we will have those clerks' offices open and doing business later in the spring or summer ... And there's going to be ample opportunities for folks that do not have a valid photo ID to obtain that free photo ID that is allowed in this piece of legislation."[144]

Following the 2019 elections, Kentucky was one of four states where one party held veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and an opposing party controls the governor's office.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R)

Massachusetts

Democratic-controlled General Court overrides Gov. Charlie Baker's (R) veto of abortion bill

On Dec. 29, 2020, the Massachusetts General Court overrode Gov. Charlie Baker's (R) veto of a bill concerning abortion regulations. House Bill 5179 (H.B. 5179), also known as the ROE Act, codified the right to an abortion in state law, expanded abortion access to pregnancies after 24 weeks in certain cases, and lowered the age of consent for abortion to 16.[147]

Proponents of H.B. 5179 said the bill was necessary to protect the right to an abortion. Senate President Harriette Chandler (D), speaking before the veto, said that the bill "ensures that the choice of an abortion is between a patient and their doctor."[148] House Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D), a co-sponsor, said, "it's proper to do that and to push back against restrictions," after "an anti-choice jurist [was] placed on the Supreme Court," referring to H.B. 5179 and the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020.[149]

In his veto message, Baker said he opposed H.B. 5179's expansion of abortion access to some minors and certain later-term pregnancies. The governor said:

Baker vetoed H.B. 5179 on Dec. 24, 2020. In Massachusetts, a two-thirds vote by members present in both chambers is required to overturn a veto. At the time of the veto, Democrats had veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate.

The House overrode the veto by a vote of 107-46 on Dec. 28, 2020. Reps. James Kelcourse (R) and Susannah Whipps (I) joined 105 Democrats in voting in favor.[151] Sixteen Democratic Reps joined 30 Republicans in voting against the measure.[151] The Senate overrode the veto the next day by a vote of 32-8. All votes in favor came from Democrats, with Democratic State Sens. Nick Collins, Michael Rush, Walter Timilty, and John Velis joining the chamber's three Republicans in voting against.[152]

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R)

Mississippi

Republican-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Tate Reeve's (R) partial veto of education appropriation bill

On August 10, 2020, the Mississippi State Legislature overrode Gov. Tate Reeves' (R) July 8 partial veto of the annual education appropriations bill, House Bill 1700. This was the first time since 2002 that the Mississippi State Legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto. H.B. 1700 provided education funding for the 2021 fiscal year.[153]

As passed in the House, H.B. 1700 included an appropriation of roughly $25 million to the state's School Recognition Program, which was designed to provide bonuses to teachers in schools with high annual accountability grades or those whose grades improved a letter grade.[154][155] The final version of the bill removed the $25 million appropriation, which instead went towards defraying costs of the Mississippi Adequate Education Program, a formula used to provide funding to improve school districts' accountability grades regardless of their geographic locations.[156] Reeves partially vetoed the portion of the bill that removed the $25 million appropriation.

In his veto message, Reeves said, "the partial veto is necessary to ensure that adequate funds are available to pay 23,157 of Mississippi's best and brightest teachers the money owed to them under the School Recognition Program. In the absence of this partial veto, these teachers will be forced to take a pay cut."[155]

According to The Associated Press' Emily Wagster Pettus, "House and Senate leaders said the omission of the bonus funding was an oversight and the governor's veto was unnecessary because they intended to fund the program in a few months, in time for teachers to receive the extra pay."[153]

A two-thirds vote from both chambers of the legislature was required to override the partial veto. The House approved the override with a 109-17 vote and the Senate did so with a 41-1 vote. Also on Aug. 10, the House and Senate passed a separate bill to provide funding to the School Recognition Program.[153]

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R)

Oklahoma

Republican-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Kevin Stitt's (R) veto of the state's general appropriations bill

On May 13, 2020, the Oklahoma State Legislature overrode Gov. Kevin Stitt's (R) veto of the general appropriations bill for the 2021 fiscal year, Senate Bill 1922. S.B. 1922 represented a three percent cut from the 2020 budget with an appropriation of $7.7 billion to state agencies.[157] According to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, "most agencies will have their appropriation reduced by around 4 percent under the plan, although school funding is cut by a smaller amount and a handful of agency budgets saw budget increases."[157]

A central issue in Stitt's veto stemmed from the use of one-time sources such as savings and redirected funds in order to address a projected $1.3 billion budget shortfall.[157] Stitt had previously indicated he believed the shortfall should have been met with greater spending cuts than what was included in S.B. 1922.[158] In his veto message, Stitt said the bill was "propped up with one-time funds that will not be available for Fiscal Year 2022 ... which leaves us with very few options in FY 2022 – we will either have to raise taxes or implement draconian cuts."[159]

Oklahoma law required a two-thirds vote in both chambers in order to override the veto. The House voted 79-20 to override the veto. Two Democrats—Reps. Meloyde Blancett and Ben Loring—joined all 77 Republicans in supporting the veto override. Rep. Jason Lowe (D) was excused. The remaining 20 Democrats voted against the override.[160] The Senate voted 35-11 to override the veto. All 35 votes in favor of the override came from Republican senators. Two Republicans—Sens. Nathan Dahm and Joseph Silk—joined the nine Senate Democrats to oppose the veto. Sen. Chris Kidd (R) was excused.[161]

In total, 112 of the 115 Republican legislators supported the veto override, several of whom publicly disagreed with the governor's veto message. Senate Appropriations Chairman Roger Thompson (R) said, "Senate Bill 1922 represents our constituents and the core values of Oklahoma." Sen. Tom J. Dugger (R) wrote that "the governor called for deep, painful cuts to schools, health care, public safety and other vital services." He referred to the efforts to address the budget shortfall as "temporary adjustments [that] made it possible for us to protect education and the critical investments we've made on behalf of teachers and students."[162]

29 of the 33 Democratic legislators opposed the veto override. Senate Minority Leader Kay Floyd (D) released a statement saying, "[Senate Democrats] remain concerned the budget as passed by the Legislature already includes too many cuts to core services." Floyd added, "We disagree with the Governor's stated justification for the veto, which is that he believes the budget should include more cuts."[163] House Minority Leader Emily Virgin (D) said, “Oklahoma Democrats have been vocal for years about the need to diversify state revenue streams and we will continue to call for stable, recurring revenue that can support public education and other core services without relying on one-time funds and taking money from pension systems.”[157]

At the time of the vote, Oklahoma was one of 21 Republican state government trifectas, meaning Republicans controlled both chambers of the legislature as well as the governorship.

In addition to S.B. 1922, members of the legislature voted to override Stitt's vetoes of three other budget-related bills: House Bills 2741, 2742, and 2743.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R)

Vermont

Democratic-controlled State Legislature overrides Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of climate change legislation

On Sept. 22, 2020, the Vermont State Senate overrode Gov. Phil Scott's (R) veto of H. 688, an act addressing climate change, with a 22-8 vote. The Vermont House of Representatives voted to override Scott's veto on Sept. 17 with a 103-47 vote. H. 688 set new carbon emission reduction targets and a new council tasked with developing the plans to reach those targets.[164] According to the General Assembly's act summary:

Scott opposed the provision of the act that allowed the state to be sued if it fails to meet the carbon emission reduction targets.[165] He also opposed the form and function of the Vermont Climate Council, saying it "presents an unconstitutional separation of powers issue" and that he opposed "the absence of a process ensuring the Legislature would formally vote on the Vermont Climate Action Plan" developed by the council.[165] In his veto message, Scott wrote:

During the House motion to override Scott's veto, Rep. Tim Briglin (D), the bill's co-sponsor, said legislators added the provision allowing the state to be sued for failing to meet the reduction requirements in response to a similar action under a climate change bill passed in Massachusetts, which lacked the lawsuit provision. The Bennington Banner's Greg Sukiennik, wrote that Briglin included the lawsuit provision "because it's 'focused and narrowing' in limiting lawsuits to the state's failure to meet deadlines and measurable targets."[166]

Speaking in response to questions about the form and function of the Vermont Climate Council, Rep. Laura Sibilia (I), vice-chair of the House Committee on Energy and Technology, said, "This bill brings technical and relevant people together to create a plan. That plan is going to require rulemaking, it's going to require public process, it's going to require funding if we are going to implement it."[167]

2017

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R)

On June 6, 2017, the Kansas legislature overrode Gov. Sam Brownback's (R) veto of legislation that repealed tax cuts Brownback had signed in 2012. Legislators' successful override came after several months of intra-party and inter-party conflict within the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature. Moderate Republicans wanted to rollback the tax cuts to address an $887 million revenue shortfall in Kansas’ budget over two years and to respond to a state Supreme Court ruling in March 2017 that state funding for K-12 education had failed to meet constitutional requirements. Conservative Republicans aligned with Brownback argued that a rollback would amount to a tax hike and hurt the economy. Democrats supported repealing the tax cuts but, in some cases, voted alongside conservatives because they felt that additional tax revenue beyond a repeal of the tax cuts was needed or because of attached legislation related to school funding. Eventually the lines between these factions blurred enough to pass legislation on the tax cuts and to override Brownback’s veto.

The 2012 tax cuts reduced the state’s income tax brackets from three to two. The original rates were 6.5 percent, 6.25 percent, and 3.5 percent, depending on an individual’s annual income. The 2012 legislation dropped those rates to 4.9 and 3 percent. It also established state income tax exemptions for more than 300,000 farmers and business owners throughout Kansas.

On June 5, the House voted 69-52 to remove the tax exemptions, bring back a third tax bracket, and raise income tax rates (5.7, 5.25, and 3.1). The Senate voted for the bill 26-14. The bill was expected to generate $1.2 billion in revenue over two years. Brownback immediately stated his intentions to veto the bill, saying, “Senate Bill 30 is a $1.2 billion tax hike, making it the largest in state history. This is bad for Kansas and bad for the many Kansans who would have more of their hard-earned money taken from them.” Following Brownback’s veto, the Legislature voted in favor of an override: 88-31 in the House and 27-13 in the Senate. Included among the yes votes for the override were eight House Republicans and six Senate Republicans who unseated Republican lawmakers aligned with Brownback in the 2016 primary elections.

In February 2017, the Legislature passed a similar bill to rollback the tax cuts, but Brownback vetoed it. In response, the House voted 85-40 to override the veto. The Senate voted 24-16 to override Brownback, which was three votes shy of the 27 needed for the override to pass.

Following the 2016 elections, Kansas was one of 25 Republican state government trifectas. Republicans had an 85-40 majority in the House and a 31-9 majority in the Senate. Two-thirds of members in both chambers must vote to override a veto, which is 84 of the 125 members in the Kansas House of Representatives and 27 of the 40 members in the Kansas State Senate.

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R)

Idaho

Republican legislators challenge Gov. Butch Otter's (R) post-adjournment veto of a repeal of the state's grocery tax

On July 18, 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a 4-1 ruling in Nate v. Denney upholding Gov. Butch Otter's veto of a repeal of the statewide grocery tax passed by the Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature in the waning days of the 2017 legislative session. The case considered the parameters of the governor's power to issue post-adjournment vetoes. Otter issued his veto after the Legislature adjourned and, because the Idaho Constitution does not allow legislators to call for a special session to override vetoes, the veto was permanent.

The grocery tax repeal passed the state House 51-19 and the state Senate 25-10. Both vote margins exceeded the two-thirds threshold needed to override gubernatorial vetoes in Idaho, which is 47 of the 70 members in the Idaho House of Representatives and 24 of the 35 members in the Idaho State Senate if all members are in attendance. Following the 2016 elections, Republicans had a 29-6 advantage in the state Senate and a 59-11 advantage in the state House.

The grocery tax repeal veto was challenged by 30 Republican lawmakers via a petition for a writ of mandamus, a judicial order which compels a government official to take a particular action. The legislators who filed the petition said that Secretary of State Lawerence Denney (R) acted improperly when he accepted the veto because Otter issued it more than 10 days after the Legislature adjourned.

The Idaho Constitution establishes a 10-day deadline for signing bills after the Legislature adjourns before they automatically become law. However, in the 1978 case Cenarrusa v. Andrus, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the 10-day period should start when the governor receives the bill from the Legislature, not when the Legislature adjourns. This was to prevent the Legislature from withholding bills from the governor until the end of the 10-day period. In the case of the grocery tax repeal, Otter vetoed the bill more than 10 days after the legislature adjourned, but less than 10 days from when he received it from the Legislature, thus acting in compliance with the Cenarrusa decision.

In the majority opinion denying the writ of mandamus, Justice Daniel Eismann ruled that the governor has only 10 days after adjournment to sign bills, therefore overturning Cenarrusa. However, he also wrote that the Legislature must present all bills to the governor upon adjournment, meaning both the presentment of the grocery tax repeal by the Legislature and Otter’s veto were unconstitutional. The ruling was not applied retroactively, so previous vetoes that came after the 10-day deadline could not be challenged in court.

As of 2015, Idaho was one of 13 states where groceries were not exempt from a statewide sales tax.

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R)

Illinois

On July 6, 2017, the Democratic-controlled Illinois General Assembly overrode Gov. Bruce Rauner’s (R) vetoes of a $36 billion spending plan and a $5 billion tax increase. The override of Rauner’s vetoes marked the end of a 2-year period in which Illinois did not have a budget in place. The state last passed a budget in June 2014, when Pat Quinn (D) served as governor. Rauner defeated Quinn in the 2014 gubernatorial election. Rauner and the General Assembly could not agree on a spending plan in 2015 or 2016, meaning that the state relied on court-ordered spending and stopgap spending measures to fund most services.

The 2017 legislative session ran from January 11 to May 31. Much of the session was focused on budget negotiations between Rauner and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D). They disagreed on several issues including freezing local property tax rates, adding additional restrictions to compensation programs for injured workers, and increasing the state income tax. After failing to reach an agreement, Rauner called the General Assembly into special session from June 21 to June 30, the last day of the 2017 fiscal year. A budget agreement was not reached before June 30, meaning Illinois entered the 2018 fiscal year without a budget.

On July 2, the state House passed a $36 billion spending plan and a $5 billion tax increase. The tax plan raised the personal income tax from 3.75 to 4.95 percent and increased the corporate income tax from 5.25 percent to 7 percent. The budget passed the House by a 72-45 vote. On July 4, the state Senate passed the budget on a 36-18 vote. Shortly after the state Senate passed the budget, it was vetoed by Rauner. The bill was sent back to the Senate the same day and Rauner’s veto was overridden by a 36-19 margin. On July 6, the House overrode the veto by a 71-42 margin. Prior to passing the budget, Illinois faced cuts to state services, including shutdowns of state transportation projects and the state lottery, and a potential downgrade of the credit rating on its bonds to junk status.

The conflict between Rauner and the General Assembly continued after the budget was passed. $8.2 billion in state aid for public schools was included in the budget agreement. However, language was also included that said $6.76 billion of the aid had to be dispersed through a funding formula that calculates state aid for school districts based on the cost of strategies that supporters say are proven to improve student performance. The funding for districts can be increased by elements such as income, property wealth, and English-learning needs.[168][169][170] On May 31, the General Assembly passed SB 1, which contained the necessary funding formula. Gov. Rauner indicated that he would veto the bill because he believed it would benefit Chicago at the expense of other areas of the state.[171]

Rauner issued an amendatory veto on August 1, rewriting SB 1 to remove a $250 million block grant to Chicago Public Schools and changing how the funding formula weights Chicago schools' pension funds.[172] The Illinois Senate met on August 13 and overrode the veto by a 38-19 vote, with all Democrats and Republican Sam McCann voting to override.[173] The Illinois House was scheduled to vote on the override on August 23, but Speaker Madigan cancelled the vote on August 22. He said that progress had been made in negotiations with Rauner and Republicans.[174][175][176]

On August 24, the four leaders in the General Assembly— Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton (D), Senate Minority Leader Bill Brady (R), and House Minority Leader Jim Durkin (R)— announced that they had reached a compromise agreement on SB 1. According to Politico, the agreement kept the funding formula from SB 1 and included $75 million in subsidies for private school education.[177]

On August 28, the Illinois House rejected the agreement in a 46-61 vote.[178] The chamber next voted on an override of SB 1. After the override vote received just 63 of the 71 votes it needed to pass, the chamber took up the compromise bill again and passed it 73-34.[179] On August 29, the Illinois Senate passed the compromise bill by a 38-13 vote. Gov. Rauner said he would sign the bill.[180]

Following the 2016 elections, Illinois was one of 19 states under divided government. Democrats had a 67-51 majority in the House and a 37-22 majority in the Senate. Three fifths of members in both chambers must vote to override a veto, which is 71 of the 118 members in the Illinois House of Representatives and 36 of the 59 members in the Illinois State Senate.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D)

North Carolina

Republican-controlled General Assembly overrides four vetoes issued by Gov. Roy Cooper (D)

From March 23, 2017, to June 28, 2017, the General Assembly of North Carolina overrode four vetoes issued by Gov. Roy Cooper (D). The vetoes were related to conflict between the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Cooper following the 2016 elections where Cooper defeated incumbent Pat McCrory (R) in a close race. McCrory did not concede the race until almost a month after the election. He requested a recount since unofficial vote totals had him within 10,000 votes of Cooper. Despite Cooper's victory, Republicans won a 35-15 majority in the North Carolina State Senate and a 74-46 majority in the North Carolina House of Representatives, giving them the three-fifths majority needed in each chamber to override gubernatorial vetoes.

Before Cooper was sworn in, the General Assembly began passing legislation that Democrats argued was intended to curtail the governor's power. The General Assembly continued passing such legislation after Cooper was sworn in on January 1, 2017. Legislation included, for example, efforts to restructure the state board of elections, to require Senate approval of cabinet-level appointments, and to decrease the number of governor-appointed judges on the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Cooper's veto was overridden on four key bills: HB 100, HB 239, SB 68, and SB 257.

• HB 100 made Superior Court and District Court judicial elections partisan. It was passed on March 8. Cooper vetoed it on March 16 and was overridden on March 23.
• HB 239 reduced the number of judges on the appellate bench from 15 to 12. It also prohibited Cooper from filling the next three vacancies on the court and required them to go unfilled. It was passed on April 11. Cooper vetoed it on April 21 and was overridden on April 26.
• SB 68 changed the appointment procedures for members of the state elections board, allowing the governor to make appointments to an eight-member board based on lists submitted by Democratic and Republican state party chairs. Under previous law, the state elections board had five members, all appointed by the governor. It also required that a Republican chair the board in years with presidential and gubernatorial elections and a Democrat chair it during midterm elections, and it merged the board with the State Ethics Commission. It was passed on April 11. Cooper vetoed it on April 21 and was overridden on April 25.
• SB 257 was the state budget. It included decreases in the state’s personal income tax rate from 5.49 percent to 5.25 percent and a decrease in the corporate income tax rate from 3 percent to 2.5 percent. It also provided for a 3.3 percent salary increase, on average, for teachers and a $1,000 raise for other state employees. It included a provision limiting Cooper's ability to hire private lawyers to challenge bills passed by the General Assembly and transferred the state Industrial Commission, which was under control of an agency in Cooper's cabinet, to the State Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey (R). It was passed on June 21. Cooper vetoed it on June 27 and was overridden on June 28.

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Even though Nebraska has a unicameral state legislature, it is included in this figure.
2. ↑ One party needs to control 40 of the 60 seats across both chambers to have a veto-proof majority in the legislature
3. ↑ Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its two legislative chambers, which is 40 of 60 legislators.
4. ↑ California State Capitol Museum, "Life Cycle of a Bill," accessed July 21, 2017
5. ↑ Spokesman.com "Grocery tax repeal veto prompts debate in Idaho over powers of Legislature, governor," April 23, 2017
6. ↑ Delaware State News, "Delaware legislators to attempt override of opt-out veto," January 13, 2016
7. ↑ The Orlando Sentinel "Gov. Rick Scott's veto power: Tallahassee takeaways," May 18, 2017
8. ↑ 11 Alive, "Lawmakers: No special session for veto override, please," March 31, 2016
9. ↑ Indianapolis Business Journal, "Indiana Senate votes to override two Pence vetoes," February 14, 2017
10. ↑ NewsOK, "Iowa lawmakers ponder a special session," May 19, 2013
11. ↑ The Baltimore Sun, "Hogan vetoes Maryland Democrats' paid sick leave bill," May 25, 2017
12. ↑ Mississippi First, "Governor Bryant Vetoes SB 2161," April 24, 2015
13. ↑ Nevada Legislature, "Vetoes and Special Sessions," accessed July 3, 2017
14. ↑ Newmexicopolitics.net "New Mexico’s veto problem," June 26, 2017
15. ↑ The Oregon Legislature, "How an Idea Really Becomes a Law," accessed July 3, 2017
16. ↑ Pennsylvania Code, "§ 9.127. Passage of vetoed bill.," accessed July 3, 2017
17. ↑ The News & Observer "Special veto session unlikely for South Carolina Legislature," July 1, 2017
18. ↑ TN Report, "Veto-Override Session May be in Works," March 21, 2014
19. ↑ Vermont Secretary of State, "Pocket Veto," accessed July 3, 2017
20. ↑ Watson, Richard. Origins and Early Development of the Veto Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol.17, no.2 (1987): 401-412.
21. ↑ The Washington Post, "President Obama’s recent vetoes were unconstitutional. Congress should sue him.," December 30, 2015
22. ↑ Moncrief, G. & Squire, P. (2010). "State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes". United States. Pearson Education. (184)
23. ↑ Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, "Senate Leadership Statement On Kelly Veto of Ad Astra 2 Map," Feb. 3, 2022
24. ↑ 24.00 24.01 24.02 24.03 24.04 24.05 24.06 24.07 24.08 24.09 24.10 24.11 24.12 24.13 24.14 24.15 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 State of Kansas, "Senate Bill No. 355 (Enrolled,)" Feb. 3, 2022
26. ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "SB 355 - House - Motion to override veto prevailed," Feb. 9, 2022
27. ↑ Kansas State Legislature, "SB 355 - Senate - Motion to override veto prevailed," Feb. 8, 2022
28. ↑ WHAS 11, "'He is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and he knows it.' Gov. Beshear vetoes proposed redistricting bills," Jan. 19, 2022
29. ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 2 of the 2022 Regular Session," Jan. 19, 2022.
30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding Senate Bill 3 of the 2022 Regular Session," Jan. 19, 2022
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky House of Representatives, "HB2: AN ACT relating to redistricting. EMERGENCY," accessed Jan. 28, 2022
32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Senate, "SB3: AN ACT relating to redistricting and declaring an emergency," accessed Jan. 28, 2022
33. ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "KY Republicans override Beshear’s veto of sweeping abortion bill. It takes effect immediately," April 14, 2022
34. ↑ Spectrum News 1, "Lawmakers override Beshear's veto of charter school funding bill," April 14, 2022
35. ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, "Senate Bill 83," accessed April 29, 2022
36. ↑ The News-Enterprise, "Tate files omnibus pro-life bill," Feb. 11, 2022
37. ↑ Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky regarding House Bill 3 of the 2022 Regular Session," accessed April 15, 2022
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 The Lane Report, "Kentucky charter schools bill advances off House floor, heads to Senate," March 22, 2022
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky regarding House Bill 9 of the 2022 Regular Session," accessed April 15, 2022
40. ↑ NBC News, "Kentucky Legislature overrides governor's veto of transgender sports ban," April 13, 2022
41. ↑ Twitter, "Max Wise's tweet on April 6, 2022," accessed April 29, 2022
42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding Senate Bill 83 of the 2022 Regular Session," accessed April 29, 2022
43. ↑ Courier Journal, "Kentucky General Assembly speeds through overrides of Beshear vetoes. Here's a rundown," April 13, 2022
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Kentucky General Assembly, "HB3: AN ACT relating to public health. EMERGENCY," accessed April 15, 2022
45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 Kentucky General Assembly, "HB9: AN ACT relating to educational opportunities. APPROPRIATON." accessed April 15, 2022
46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Kentucky General Assembly, "SB83: AN ACT relating to athletics," accessed April 29, 2022
47. ↑ KATC, "Louisiana Legislature overrides Edwards' veto of congressional maps," March 30, 2022
48. ↑ KPLC News, "Civil rights groups file lawsuits over state’s new gerrymandered congressional maps," April 1, 2022
49. ↑ The Hill, "Louisiana governor vetoes congressional maps," March 10, 2022
50. ↑ Louisiana Office of the Governor, "Gov. Edwards Vetoes Proposed Congressional District Map, Announces Other Action on Newly Drawn District Maps," March. 9, 2022
51. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "RECONSIDERATION OF VETOED BILLS; HB1 BY MR. SPEAKER; PASS BILL SUBSEQUENT TO VETO," March 30, 2022
52. ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "HB 1 BY MR. SPEAKER; MOTION BY HEWITT; OVERRIDE VETO," March 30, 2022
53. ↑ The Advocate, "In an historic vote, Louisiana Legislature overturns governor's veto on congressional maps," March 30, 2022
54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 54.2 54.3 54.4 54.5 54.6 54.7 Maryland Matters, "Hogan Vetoes Abortion and Paid Family Leave Bills, Allows Climate Measure to Become Law," April 8, 2022
55. ↑ Twitter, "Shaneka Henson's tweet on April 8, 2022," accessed April 13, 2022
56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 56.2 56.3 56.4 56.5 56.6 56.7 The Office of Governor Larry Hogan, "Governor Hogan Announces Additional Legislative Actions," accessed April 13, 2022
57. ↑ Twitter, "Del. J. Peña-Melnyk's tweet on April 9, 2022
58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 Fox 5 Washington DC, "Maryland lawmakers override Governor Hogan's vetoes," April 10, 2022
59. ↑ The Washington Post, "Md. lawmakers overturn Hogan's veto, push for expanded MARC service," April 10, 2022
60. ↑ Greenwich Time, "Maryland lawmakers override gov's veto of abortion expansion," April 9, 2022
61. ↑ Maryland Matters, "Gun Dealers Oppose Speaker’s Bill to Require Theft Deterrents," March 2, 2022
62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 Maryland Matters, "With Legislative Overrides, Paid Leave and Abortion Access Bills Become Law in Maryland," April 9, 2022
63. ↑ The Daily Record, "Md. legislature enacts counsel requirement at child interrogations over Hogan’s veto," April 11, 2022
64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 64.2 Channel 6 News, "Nebraska legislature overrides budget vetoes including prison programs, MoPac trail," April 7, 2022
65. ↑ 65.0 65.1 Nebraska Unicameral Update, "Lawmakers override line-item vetos; budget adjustments stand," April 7, 2022
66. ↑ Nebraska Public Media, "Tax Cuts, ARPA Spending, Veto Overrides Approved," April 7, 2022
67. ↑ Nebraska Office of the Governor, "Governor Pete Ricketts Veto Message," April 4, 2022
68. ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "LB1011 - Provide, change, and eliminate provisions relating to appropriations," accessed April 13, 2022
69. ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "LB1012 - Provide for fund transfers, create funds, and change and eliminate provisions regarding funds and reimbursement provisions," accessed April 13, 2022
70. ↑ Nebraska Legislature, "LB1013 - Change provisions relating to the Cash Reserve Fund
71. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB0011," accessed March 30, 2022
72. ↑ Utah Senate, "Legislature Overrides Veto on H.B. 11," March. 25, 2022
73. ↑ 73.0 73.1 Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox, "Gov. Cox: Why I'm vetoing HB11," accessed March 30, 2022
74. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB0011 - House/ override Governor's veto - Passed 56 - 18 - 1," March 25, 2022
75. ↑ Utah State Legislature, "HB0011 - Senate/ override Governor's veto - Passed 21 - 8 - 0," March 25, 2022
76. ↑ There are several terms used to describe gender reassignment treatments. The Arkansas General Assembly used the term "gender reassignment" in House Bill 1570. Cornell University provides a glossary of terms that says gender reassignment treatments may also be referred to as gender affirming or gender confirming treatments.
77. ↑ 77.0 77.1 Arkansas General Assembly, "House Bill 1570," accessed April 7, 2021
78. ↑ Cornell University, "Transgender Terminology," accessed April 7, 2021
79. ↑ 79.0 79.1 The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "Transgender-bill veto overridden; state 1st to ban kids’ gender-affirming care," April 7, 2021
80. ↑ 80.0 80.1 YouTube, "Republican governor vetoes anti-transgender health care bill," April 5, 2021
81. ↑ U.S. News, "Hawaii Lawmakers Override Ige's Veto of Tourism Funding Bill," July 6, 2021
82. ↑ Hawaii Public Radio, "Lawmakers Override Gov. Ige's Veto on Tourism Funding Bill," July 7, 2021
83. ↑ Hawaii Public Radio, "Lawmakers Override Gov. Ige's Veto on Tourism Funding Bill," July 7, 2021
84. ↑ Governor of the State of Hawaii, "OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR NEWS RELEASE: GOVERNOR IGE ANNOUNCES FINAL VETOES," July 6, 2021
85. ↑ Hawaii Public Radio, "Lawmakers Override Gov. Ige's Veto on Tourism Funding Bill," July 7, 2021
86. ↑ Hawaii State Legislature, "HB826," accessed July 15, 2021
87. ↑ Hawaii State Legislature , "HB826," accessed July 15, 2021
88. ↑ 88.0 88.1 Illinois General Assembly, “Bill Status of HB0684,” accessed Oct.14, 2021
89. ↑ LegiScan, “Illinois House Bill 684,” accessed Oct. 12, 2021
90. ↑ 90.0 90.1 90.2 WSIU Public Radio, “First Responders Urge Governor to Sign Ambulance Carveout Bill,” Aug. 26, 2021
91. ↑ Yahoo, “Illinois lawmakers override Pritzker’s ambulance veto, fail to agree on ethics changes,” Sept. 4, 2021
92. ↑ 92.0 92.1 The State Journal-Register, “Ethics legislation fails in the Illinois House as Republicans pull their support,” Sept. 1, 2021
93. ↑ 93.0 93.1 93.2 Indianapolis Star, "House overrides Gov. Holcomb's veto of landlord-tenant bill," Feb. 17, 2021
94. ↑ 94.0 94.1 The Indiana Lawyer, "House votes to override governor’s veto of landlord-tenant bill, allowing it to become law," Feb. 18, 2021
95. ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Roll Call 64: Veto Overridden," Feb. 8, 2021
96. ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Roll Call 159: Veto Overriden," Feb. 17, 2021
97. ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Senate Bill 5," accessed May 10, 2021
98. ↑ 98.0 98.1 The Associated Press, "Indiana lawmakers override veto on local health rules," May 10, 2021
99. ↑ WTHI-TV 10, "Indiana Legislature overrides Governor Holcomb’s veto of Senate Bill 5," May 10, 2021
100. ↑ State of Indiana Office of the Governor, "May 4, 2021 veto message," May 4, 2021
101. ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Actions for Senate Bill 5," accessed May 14, 2021
102. ↑ Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Health care, public health, school and business leaders support Governor’s executive order," August 10, 2021
103. ↑ Kentucky General Assembly, “Original Bill,” accessed Oct. 3, 2021
104. ↑ WYMT, “Kentucky House and Senate override Governor Andy Beshear’s veto of bill aimed at ending school mask mandates,” Sept. 9, 2021
105. ↑ WHAS, “Kentucky lawmakers override governor’s vetoes on COVID-related bills,” Sept.10, 2021
106. ↑ “ACLU.ky.org”, “SB1 Senate Vote to Pass,” accessed October 3, 2021
107. ↑ ACLU Kentucky, “SB1 House Vote to Pass,” accessed Oct. 3, 2021
108. ↑ AP, "Maryland House overrides veto of major education measure," Feb. 8, 2021
109. ↑ Maryland General Assembly website, "HB 1300 veto letter," May 7, 2020
110. ↑ WJLA, "Senate joins House in overriding Gov. Hogan's veto of Kirwan education plan," Feb. 12, 2021
111. ↑ WBAL, "General Assembly overrides veto on Kirwan Commission education reforms," Feb. 12, 2021
112. ↑ Fox 45 News, "Kirwan Commission veto override," Feb. 9, 2021
113. ↑ Maryland General Assembly, "SEQ NO. 198," Feb. 12, 2021
114. ↑ Maryland General Assembly, "SEQ. NO. 9," Feb. 8, 2021
115. ↑ 115.0 115.1 Governor of Maryland, "Veto letter," April 8, 2021
116. ↑ 116.0 116.1 Maryland General Assembly, "Judicial Proceedings Committee (2/17/2021)," Feb. 17, 2021
117. ↑ Governor of Maryland, "Veto letter," April 9, 2021
118. ↑ Twitter, "Speaker Adrienne A. Jones," April 10, 2021
119. ↑ Maryland General Assembly, “Congressional Redistricting Plan,” accessed Dec. 9, 2021
120. ↑ 120.0 120.1 120.2 WTOP, "Md. General Assembly overrides Hogan’s veto of Congressional redistricting plan," Dec. 9, 2021
121. ↑ WBAL-TV, "House, Senate override governor's veto of congressional redistricting map," December 9, 2021
122. ↑ Federal News Network, “Maryland lawmakers override Hogan’s congressional map veto,” Dec. 9, 2021
123. ↑ 123.0 123.1 WBAL, "House, Senate override governor's veto of congressional redistricting map," Dec. 10, 2021
124. ↑ State of Maryland, "HB 1 veto letter," Dec. 9, 2021
125. ↑ 125.0 125.1 125.2 StreetsBlog Mass, “State House Update: Lawmakers Override Gov. Baker’s Transit Budget Veto,” Aug 2. 2021
126. ↑ Massachusetts Legislature, “Bill S.2277,” accessed Nov. 16, 2021
127. ↑ WWLP News, “Regional transit advocates seek funding boost, clarity,” July 22 2021
128. ↑ StreetsBlog Mass, “State House Update: Baker Vetoes RTA Budget Increase, Proposal Advances for New T Governing Board,” July 19, 2021
129. ↑ Bloomberg, “Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems,” accessed July 14, 2021
130. ↑ AP News, "Nebraska lawmakers override vetoes of SNAP, pension bills," May 26, 2021
131. ↑ Pensions and Investments Online, "Nebraska lawmakers override veto to transfer administration of Omaha plan," May 27, 2021
132. ↑ Office of Governor Pete Ricketts, "Gov. Ricketts Urges Senators to Sustain Three Vetoes," May 25, 2021
133. ↑ 133.0 133.1 While the Nebraska State Senate is officially nonpartisan, Senators often caucus with, are registered as, and receive endorsements from specific parties. Ballotpedia tracks these features when determining state Senators' political parties.
134. ↑ ‘’Nebraska Legislature’’ , “Recorded Vote, LB147,” May 26, 2021
135. ↑ AP News, "Nebraska lawmakers override vetoes of SNAP, pension bills," May 26, 2021
136. ↑ WOWT 8 News, "Nebraska Legislature overrides Ricketts veto of SNAP benefits," May 26, 2021
137. ↑ Office of Governor Pete Ricketts, "Gov. Ricketts Urges Senators to Sustain Three Vetoes," May 25, 2021
138. ↑ ‘’Nebraska Legislature’’ , “Recorded Vote, LB108,” May 26, 2021
139. ↑ AP News, "Nebraska lawmakers override vetoes of SNAP, pension bills," May 26, 2021
140. ↑ Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, “Energy Assistance (LIHEAP),” accessed July 14, 2021
141. ↑ 141.0 141.1 Unicameral Update, "Veto of home energy assistance expansion overridden," May 26, 2021
142. ↑ 142.0 142.1 Office of Governor Pete Ricketts, "Gov. Ricketts Urges Senators to Sustain Three Vetoes," May 25, 2021
143. ↑ ‘’Nebraska Legislature’’ , “Recorded Vote, LB306
144. ↑ 144.0 144.1 144.2 Fox 56, "Kentucky lawmakers override veto of voter ID measure," April 14, 2020
145. ↑ Courier-Journal, "Kentucky legislature overrides 5 of Gov. Beshear's vetoes, passes Marsy's Law," April 14, 2020
146. ↑ 146.0 146.1 Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor, "Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding Senate Bill 2 of the 2020 Regular Session," April 3, 2020
147. ↑ NBC Boston, "Abortion Access Expanded in Mass. as Legislature Overrides Baker's Veto," Dec. 29, 2020
148. ↑ Twitter, "Tweet from Harriette Chandler," Dec. 11, 2020
149. ↑ PEW Trusts Stateline, "Trump-Appointed Judges Fuel Abortion Debate in the States," Jan. 25, 2021
150. ↑ Masslive, "Read the letter: Gov. Charlie Baker explains reason behind veto of bill to expand abortion access in Massachusetts," Dec. 24, 2020
151. ↑ 151.0 151.1 Massachusetts House of Representatives, "H. 5179 Shall this stand notwithstanding objection." accessed May 4, 2022
152. ↑ Massachusetts State Senate, "H. 5179 -- Question on passing , notwithstanding the objections of the Governor," accessed May 4, 2022
153. ↑ 153.0 153.1 153.2 The Associated Press, "Mississippi school funding feud resolved with veto, new bill," Aug. 10, 2020
154. ↑ The Northside Sun, "Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto on Education Bill," Aug. 10, 2020
155. ↑ 155.0 155.1 <http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2020/pdf/veto/HB1700.pdf Office of the Governor, "Governor's Partial Veto Message for House Bill 1700," July 8, 2020]
156. ↑ Mississippi Department of Education, "Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP)," accessed Aug. 24, 2020
157. ↑ 157.0 157.1 157.2 157.3 Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, "Stitt vetoes budget; Legislature overrides," May 14, 2020
158. ↑ KOCO, "Fiscal year 2021 budget becomes law after House, Senate vote to override Gov. Stitt's veto," May 20, 2020
159. ↑ Governor of Oklahoma website, "Governor Stitt Vetoes Legislature's Proposed FY 2021 Budget," May 13, 2020
160. ↑ SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SB1922_VOTES.HTM Oklahoma House of Representatives, "SB 1922," accessed June 17, 2020
161. ↑ SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/votes/Senate/SB1922_VOTES.HTM The Oklahoma State Senate, "SENATE BILL 1922," accessed June 17, 2020
162. ↑ Stillwater News Press, "SEN. TOM DUGGER: Explaining the veto override," May 16, 2020
163. ↑ Oklahoma Senate, "Statement from Senate Democrats on override of governor’s budget vetoes," May 14, 2020
164. ↑ Vermont General Assembly's Office of Legislative Counsel, "Act No. 153 (H.688). Energy; climate change," accessed Dec. 14, 2020
165. ↑ 165.0 165.1 Office of the Governor, "Veto message," Sept. 15, 2020
166. ↑ Bennington Banner, "Vt. House overrides Scott's veto of climate bill," Sept. 17, 2020
167. ↑ VTDigger, "House overrides Scott’s veto of Global Warming Solutions Act," Sept. 17, 2020
168. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EDU
169. ↑ NPR Illinois, "Education Desk: Evidence-Based School Funding Model Explained," September 26, 2016
170. ↑ WTTW, "Education Funding in Illinois: How the Evidence-Based Model Works," September 21, 2016
171. ↑ U.S. News and World Report, "Rauner Aide: Democrats' School Funding Plan a CPS 'Bailout'," May 17, 2017
172. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner vetoes education funding plan, Emanuel accuses him of 'fuzzy math'," August 1, 2017
173. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Senate overrides Rauner school funding veto, but House hurdle remains," August 13, 2017
174. ↑ The Chicago Sun-Times, "Speaker Madigan calls legislators to work — on Governor’s Day," August 9, 2017
175. ↑ wglt.org, "Illinois House To Vote Next Week On School Funding Override," August 16, 2017
176. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Madigan calls off Wednesday session in Springfield; no override vote of Rauner for now," August 23, 2017
177. ↑ Politico, "SCHOOL funding WINNERS and LOSERS — RAUNER staffing TURMOIL — Saving ABE in CHICAGO," August 25, 2017
178. ↑ capitolfax.com, "Education funding reform bill gets just 46 votes," August 28, 2017
179. ↑ capitolfax.com, "On second try, education funding reform passes with 73 votes," August 28, 2017
180. ↑ capitolfax.com, "React rolls in to passage of education funding reform," August 29, 2017