logo
Overriding a Texas governor's veto can be impossible. Lawmakers are trying to change that.

Overriding a Texas governor's veto can be impossible. Lawmakers are trying to change that.

Yahoo24-05-2025

The last time the Legislature overrode a governor's veto on a bill was in 1979, when William Clements was governor.
It's not that members don't want to exercise their legislative authority — meant to be equal to the executive branch. It's that in almost every case, they can't.
Lawmakers can override the governor's vetoes only during the session in which the bills are rejected, according to experts' interpretation of the law. But typically, governors veto bills after sine die – the last day of session.
In 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a nearly record-breaking 76 bills and one budget item— widely seen as his way to punish members for failing to pass his priority bills. Just two bills were vetoed during the session, in the window that lawmakers could have voted to override them.
Now, some lawmakers want to change that process. A proposal by Sen. Brian Birdwell would amend the Texas Constitution to allow legislators to briefly meet after the regular session ends to reconsider bills that passed by more than two-thirds of members.
The Republican from Granbury said at a March state affairs committee hearing that his resolution was not in response to Abbott's vetoes, noting that he submitted the same bill prior to the end of last session. But he did highlight the high number of bills that passed last session with more than two-thirds support in each chamber.
According to an analysis by the Texas Tribune, 71 of the 76 bills that Abbott vetoed passed through both chambers with a veto-proof majority, or more than two-thirds support.
'My intent here is to restore the checks and balances of Texas government, and legislation that was passed by an overwhelming majority such as two-thirds reflects the importance of that issue to the constituents of the state,' Birdwell said.
He acknowledged at the hearing that lawmakers may not want to return to the Capitol after the session ends, but that his proposal could also boost legislative efficiency by preventing the Legislature from bringing up the same bills again the next session.
The infrequent overrides aren't too surprising, given that both legislative branches and the governor's office in Texas have all been led by Republicans since 2003, and are likely to share priorities — or at least refrain from challenging each other publicly.
Abbott's vetoes in 2023 made up just over 6% of the 1,246 House and Senate bills passed during the regular session, but were the highest number since 2001, when then-Gov. Rick Perry vetoed 81 bills.
Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, a Democrat from Austin, signed on as co-author because she wanted to get the 'right balance' between the executive and legislative branches, she said in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
'The massacre of bills was so broad, and it was all about retribution,' she said, referring to the Legislature's denial of the school voucher bill and and on property taxes. 'The governor didn't even use a fig leaf to disguise that it was about retribution … I don't believe that's what the framers of the Texas constitution intended.'
Abbott vetoed 30 of the bills on one day, with a common message in many veto explanations: "At this time, the legislature must concentrate on delivering property tax cuts to Texans," he wrote.
Last session's vetoes drew a rare public critique from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: 'It's not a very good image to veto bills for no reason other than he didn't get the property tax bill he wants.'
If it became law, the practice would align Texas with at least 25 other states that allow veto overrides after the session – either through a reconvening such as the one Birdwell is proposing, or during the next regular session.
Because it's a joint resolution, Birdwell's proposal doesn't require the governor's approval — but it will need support from at least a two-thirds majority in each chamber before being put to voters at a general election.
The measure passed the Senate unanimously in mid-April, but hasn't been taken up by a House committee, with the end of session less than two weeks away.
Time isn't the only challenge. Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said he thinks the bill faces an uphill battle despite not needing the governor's approval, because of the pressure Abbott can put on lawmakers.
The veto power is one of the clearest ways governors can flex their executive muscle, he said.
'The governor is as powerful as they're able to make themselves, and the extent to which they can leverage the modest powers they have under the Constitution,' he said in an interview.
And even if it did pass, lawmakers could face retribution if they did vote to override a veto.
Additionally, Rottinghaus said, it's rare to see major structural changes to the way the Texas government works.
'Texas' government is designed to be small government, so any changes from that are usually met with resistance,' he said. 'So even just inertia alone is enough to probably minimize this bill.'
Disclosure: University of Houston has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rep. Alford to introduce congressional stock trading ban mirroring Senate's 'PELOSI Act'
Rep. Alford to introduce congressional stock trading ban mirroring Senate's 'PELOSI Act'

Fox News

time13 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Rep. Alford to introduce congressional stock trading ban mirroring Senate's 'PELOSI Act'

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., on Wednesday will introduce legislation that would ban congressional stock trading, serving as the House companion bill to Sen. Josh Hawley's, R-Mo., "PELOSI Act" in the Senate. Alford's proposed bill would ban lawmakers and their spouses from holding, purchasing or selling individual stocks while in office, but it allows investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds or U.S. Treasury bonds. If passed, current lawmakers would have 180 days to comply with the legislation. Likewise, newly elected lawmakers must achieve compliance within 180 days of entering office. "As public servants, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and avoid the mere appearance of corruption," Alford said in a statement. "Unfortunately, too many members of Congress are engaging in suspicious stock trades based on non-public information to enrich themselves." "These gross violations of the public trust make clear: we must finally take action to ban members and their spouses from owning or selling individual stocks," he added. Under the proposed legislation, lawmakers who continue to make wrongful transactions would be required to hand over any profits they made to the U.S. Treasury Department. The House or Senate ethics committees could also impose a fine on such lawmakers amounting to 10% of each wrongful transaction. House Speaker Mike Johnson endorsed a stock trading ban on Wednesday, saying "a few bad actors" have ruined Americans' trust in lawmakers on the issue. "You want me to tell you my honest opinion on that? I'm in favor of that, because I don't think we should have any appearance of impropriety here," he told reporters during a press conference. President Donald Trump himself endorsed the same ban for members of Congress in an interview with Time magazine last month. "I watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it. If they send that to me, I would do it," he said of a trading ban. "You'll sign it?" the reporter pressed. "Absolutely," Trump responded. Democrats in the House of Representatives have also expressed support for a ban, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., throwing his weight behind the proposal last week.

Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting map
Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting map

CBS News

time14 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting map

Less than a day after Tarrant County commissioners approved a controversial redistricting proposal, a group of citizens filed a lawsuit claiming intentional discrimination. According to the Lone Star Project, the lawsuit claims that Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare and his followers engaged in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution by drawing the new district lines. "Intentional discrimination is still against the law," said lead legal counsel for the citizen plaintiffs, Chad Dunn. "The map they drew, the process they used to draw it, and the animosity shown to the citizens of Tarrant County violate the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution." Hundreds of residents speak out for, against the redistricting More than 200 people spoke out about redrawing boundary lines during public comment Tuesday night. The majority who spoke were against redistricting, including the mayors of Arlington, Mansfield and Forest Hills. There were still several speakers who expressed their support. Several used the phrase "don't Dallas my Tarrant." Tarrant County "I want to say that I fully support deterring redistricting efforts. These lines haven't been updated since 2010," said Carlos Turcios, the community development committee chairman for the Tarrant Republican Party. Commissioners moved into executive session around 3 p.m. on Tuesday after some tense moments between the two Democrats and the three Republicans. As Commissioner Alisa Simmons expressed all the reasons she is against redistricting, Judge Tim O'Hare abruptly moved to executive session in an effort to limit her comments. O'Hare is spearheading this process and has been clear that it's about partisan politics. He wants another Republican seat on the court to ensure conservative leadership for the next decade. "It's a very divided country and the parties, I'm not sure, have never been further apart in their beliefs," O'Hare said. "I don't apologize for being a Republican. I don't apologize for being a conservative." "It's not partisan. It is racism." Critics believe the redistricting is racial gerrymandering, saying it goes beyond partisan politics and say it dilutes the voting power of minorities. "Absolutely, it's not partisan. It is racism," Simmons said during the meeting. The new map does appear to take areas with high Black and brown populations from precinct two and put them in precinct one. SMU political science professor Calvin Jillson said what the court did is not unusual, but the legality of the new lines comes down to intentions. "Oh, this absolutely gerrymandering – it is the redrawing of electoral boundaries for partisan purposes," Jillson said. "The question is whether the purposes behind the redrawing were actually political, in which case gerrymandering is legal, or racial discrimination, in which case it would not be legal." Check out more on the CBS News Texas YouTube page: contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store