What bills did Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves veto? See the list
Legislators, during their next regular session, could override the vetoes if a two-thirds majority of lawmakers in each chamber votes to do so. Such a supermajority vote is hard to attain, and veto overrides are rare. Lawmakers have only overridden one of Reeves' previous vetoes, and that was the first override of a veto since 2002.
The governor can also line-item veto appropriation bills, but lawmakers adjourned their session without adopting a budget to fund the state government.
Here's a list of bills that Reeves vetoed this year:
House Bill 569
This legislation would have changed when medical facilities were required to apply for a 'certificate of need' from the Mississippi State Department of Health before opening or adding new services.
Reeves vetoed the bill because he argued it unlawfully attempted to circumvent an ongoing court case by granting a certificate to a single psychiatric hospital in Jackson.
House Bill 924
The legislation would have granted the Legislature's watchdog committee the authority to conduct a review of new state agency regulations and determine if those regulations conform to what the Legislature intended for the agency to do.
Reeves vetoed the bill because he argued that it greatly expanded the power of a legislative committee and may have exceeded the constitutional authority of the legislative branch.
House Bill 1085
This bill would have removed a grant program for Main Street projects in the state from under the Mississippi Development Authority, an executive agency directly under Reeves' control, to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, an agency governed by an independent board.
Reeves argued that the legislation was unconstitutional because it combined general legislation with an appropriation bill, which the Mississippi Constitution prohibits. The governor compared the legislation to a 'duck-billed platypus that defies both logic and classification.'
House Bill 1126
The bill would have set a maximum local match requirement for counties and municipalities that receive Gulf Coast Restoration funds to fund projects. Currently, the Mississippi Development Authority sets rules and regulations for a local match.
The legislation capped the local match at either 20% of the total cost or the value of one mill of taxable property in the area, whichever is less, but Reeves vetoed the measure because it mandated requirements instead of allowing an agency to set flexible rules.
Senate Bill 2386 and Senate Bill 2867
These two bills made technical amendments to the state's Medicaid program, often referred to as the 'Medicaid tech bill.' The main thrust of the two bills was to lock in place supplemental payment programs that have been a lifeline for hospitals.
Reeves said in his veto message of Senate Bill 2867 that locking the supplemental payment program in place is in contradiction with another of the bill's mandates, which would change the program to allow out-of-state hospitals that border Mississippi to participate in the supplemental payment program.
'Complying with both requirements is a legal impossibility and places the Division, like Odysseus, between Scylla and Charybdis,' Reeves wrote.
Reeves vetoed Senate Bill 2867 while the Legislature was still in session. Instead of overriding the veto, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 2386, a new Medicaid technology bill that addresses only some of Reeves' concerns. The governor also vetoed that bill.
Senate Bill 2573
This bill would have created the Mississippi Department of Tourism, but Reeves vetoed the bill because legislative leaders failed to pass a budget during their regular session. The governor argued it would be irresponsible to create a new state agency without an accompanying budget.
Senate Bill 2840
This bill would have allocated money for various projects around the state. Reeves argued the bill was unconstitutional because it combined general legislation with an appropriations bill, something the Mississippi Constitution prohibits.
___
This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Get rid of mail-in voting? Trump goal sparks debate, threatened lawsuits
Trump has long railed against mail-in voting but experts say states and the Congress control election rules rather than the president. WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's latest push to end absentee voting has ignited a firestorm of criticism and intense debate about the nation's election rules as the next midterm and presidential campaigns kick into gear. Election-law experts said a president has no role in governing elections. Advocacy groups threatened lawsuits aiming to block Trump. And Democrats braced for a political fight heading into the 2026 and 2028 election cycles as they look to rebound after a disastrous 2024 campaign. 'The Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections," said Michael Waldman, CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. "Presidents have no lawful role.' But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Aug. 19 that Trump would work with lawmakers to end mail-in voting because "this is a priority for the president." Here's what you need to know: How popular is mail-in voting? Mail-in voting is widespread and popular. Out of 155 million votes cast in 2024, nearly 47 million were mailed in, according to the Election Assistance Commission. Most states allow absentee voting for no reason, but some states require an excuse to avoid showing up in person. Eight states and Washington, DC, allow elections to be conducted entirely by mail, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state mail ballots to all registered voters. Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said vote-by-mail elections are secure, accurate and honest. 'If he actually understood or cared about the American people, he'd know mail-in-voting is the best way to protect everyone's right to vote, especially rural folks, elderly people and hourly workers,' Read said. 'Mail-in-voting meets citizens exactly where they are: in their living rooms and around their kitchen tables.' Trump seeks to end mail-in voting Trump said Aug. 18 he would sign an executive order to abolish mail-in voting, which he slammed as vulnerable to fraud. Trump has long complained about absentee voting, since before the COVID-19 pandemic that shut down many in-person events. 'We're going to end mail-in voting," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "It's a fraud." Trump's announcement came while special House races are pending in Arizona and Tennessee; New Jersey and Virginia will be choosing governors in November this year; and some big-city mayors will be chosen in New York and elsewhere. The whole country will be voting on House races and one-third of the Senate 2026, and for president in 2028. Despite Trump's claims, election experts said voting is the most secure in history. "As we have said repeatedly, our election infrastructure has never been more secure and the election community never better prepared to deliver safe, secure, free and fair elections for the American people," Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said after the 2024 election. David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, which works with election officials of both parties to ensure secure elections, said ballots are the most verifiable and recountable in history with only Louisiana not voting on paper. Audits confirm the results, he said. And Congress approved ID requirements to register to vote in the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which followed the razor-thin victory of President George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Trump, Democrats expect political fight over mail-in ballots Trump argued the 2020 presidential result was rigged after what his aides called a "red mirage" of an Election Day lead disappeared as mail-in ballots were counted and Joe Biden won the White House. "I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS," Trump said in a social media post Aug. 18 advocating an end to mail-in voting. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans supported mail-in voting to avoid handing Democrats an advantage even as Trump occasionally criticized them. But the GOP sought an Election Day deadline for mailed ballots to be counted. Leavitt said the White House will work with lawmakers at federal and state levels to change the law. 'When the Congress comes back to Washington, I'm sure there will be many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill and also our friends in state Legislatures across the country to ensure we're protecting the integrity of the vote for the American people," Leavitt said. But Democrats vowed to fight Trump efforts to undermine mail-in voting. While Republicans in the House could potentially approve a bill, it would face a steep challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster and where the GOP holds a 53-47 majority. 'Senate Democrats will make sure that any and every measure that would make it even more difficult for Americans to vote will be dead on arrival in the Senate and will continue to fight to protect our democracy," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York. Experts: States control election rules, not presidents The Constitution unambiguously says states regulate elections and only Congress can change that, Becker said. 'Getting rid of mail voting, which has been around since at least the U.S. Civil War, and which is offered by the vast majority of states, red and blue, is an incredibly bad idea that would make our elections much less secure and vulnerable to interference,' said Becker, a former election lawyer at the Justice Department. 'He has zero power to change election policy with the swipe of the pen, as the founders expressly stated.' Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Trump "has no constitutional authority to end mail voting by executive order." "The Framers of the U.S. Constitution took care to keep the main responsibility for administering elections with the states and localities, which are in no way mere 'agents' of federal authorities," Olson said. Advocacy groups expect lawsuits if Trump moves against mail-in voting Federal courts have repeatedly recognized the state role in elections, including when a judge largley blocked Trump's March executive order dealing with elections. In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of President Barack Obama, blocked parts of Trump's order that sought to require voters to prove they are citizens and to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots after Election Day. Trump is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," Casper wrote. Advocacy groups said getting rid of mail-in voting could discourage millions of people who appreciate the flexiblity of avoiding voting in person on Election Day. "Many veterans, grappling with service-related disabilities like mobility impairments or PTSD, rely on this accessible method to vote independently and privately from home, avoiding the physical and emotional toll of in-person polling," said Naveed Shah, political director for Common Defense, a group representing military veterans and their families. Advocates from several groups expected lawsuits to challenge any Trump order seeking to abolish mail-in voting. 'We are prepared to protect mail-in voting in court against unfounded and unconstitutional attacks, as we have in Pennsylvania, Mississippi and other states,' said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project. 'Access to mail-in voting is necessary to a fair and inclusive electoral process.'
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
Colorado lawmakers tap reserve, end tax breaks to fill budget gap
Democratic leaders at the state Capitol outlined plans Tuesday to increase taxes, cut services and tap reserve funds to close a $1 billion budget hole spurred by President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." State of play: The legislation will generate fierce debate about how the state should manage its money when lawmakers return Thursday for a special legislative session. The core of the Democratic plan eliminates a handful of corporate tax breaks worth a combined $300 million to $400 million. The five-bill package will limit the business tax deduction, remove corporate tax breaks on foreign-sold goods and crack down on corporate profit shifting to tax haven countries. The intrigue: The most controversial proposal is lowering the state's 15% financial reserve by $200 million to $300 million, dropping it to 13% at a time when fiscal analysts are warning about a potential recession. Yes, but: Those moves are not enough to close a roughly $750 million gap. Instead, lawmakers will punt $300 million in spending cuts to balance the $44 billion state budget to the governor in consultation with the legislative Joint Budget Committee in the coming weeks. The governor is expected to move quickly to implement cuts by Sept. 1. What they're saying: "We're looking forward to rolling up our sleeves and making sure we can maintain strong fiscal stewardship here in Colorado," Gov. Jared Polis told Axios Denver in a recent interview. Between the lines: More than most states, Colorado is susceptible to changes in federal taxes because they affect state income taxes. The federal tax bill, known as H.R. 1, reduced the state's individual and corporate income taxes by an estimated $1.2 billion, according to the governor's office. The other side: Republican state lawmakers are touting the cuts from Trump's tax bill and pushing back against Democratic efforts to generate new tax revenue, suggesting spending cuts are what is most needed. Sen. Byron Pelton (R-Sterling) plans to introduce legislation requiring voter approval for any bill that changes state tax liability caused by federal tax law. What's next: Beyond the budget, Democratic lawmakers also plan to introduce legislation to stabilize the state's health care marketplaces amid projections that thousands of residents could lose their insurance and enable Planned Parenthood to accept Medicaid payments.
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
Rep. Sarah McBride rips Democrats for not knowing how to combat anti-trans attacks: ‘Can't ignore these issues'
Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., criticized the Democratic Party's silence on Republican-led attacks on trans issues, arguing on Tuesday that the party needs to learn how to engage on the issue. 'I do think it was a problem that our party didn't explicitly respond to the anti-trans attacks. We can't ignore these issues. We can't just not respond and leave the narrative entirely to the Republicans,' McBride said when pressed by ex-DNC chair Jaime Harrison on his podcast. Discussing how Democrats should respond to Republicans on trans issues, the lawmaker specifically noted President Donald Trump's ad during the 2024 campaign that depicted former Vice President Kamala Harris as being for 'they/them' and the president as being 'for you.' McBride, a transgender lawmaker, said the party broadly should be focused on a 'diverse working class,' and should reject the idea of 'absolute purity politics.' 'I will say one of the reasons why, the sense that I have gotten from some Democrats as I talked to them, that you often see silence from Democrats in response to these attacks is because, to your point, they don't know how to respond, not because they don't know what they believe or how they feel, but because they feel like there is no way to respond in a way that doesn't result in everyone yelling at them,' McBride said during Harrison's podcast, 'At Our Table.' McBride said Democrats didn't need perfect terminology or to embrace the 'maximalist position' on trans issues, but suggested acknowledging concerns about transgender people participating in sports. Rep. Sarah McBride criticized the Democratic Party for staying silent on constant attacks from Republicans on trans issues. At Our Table with Jaime Harrison 'You can grapple with concerns around, for instance, trans people participating in sports, acknowledge that there are very real questions out there. But who is best able to answer those questions about how to balance respect and fairness in women's sports? It's not 435 members of Congress who know nothing about women's sports and even less about trans people. It's the individual athletic associations that understand their sports the best,' McBride said. The Democratic lawmaker said Republicans were trying to misdirect when they talk about trans people, accusing Trump of wanting to 'line the pockets' of corporations and wealthy people. 'And I think we have to be crystal clear about that while also pushing back against these attacks in ways that doesn't dismiss everyone with a question or a concern as a closed-minded bigot,' McBride said. On Jaime Harrison's podcast, McBride said, 'We can't ignore these issues,' and that the Democratic Party has to fight back against anti-trans attacks. Getty Images McBride said in June that the party might have overplayed its hand regarding trans issues. 'I think that's an accurate reflection of the overplaying of the hand in some ways — that we as a coalition went to Trans 201, Trans 301, when people were still at a very much Trans 101 stage,' McBride told The New York Times' Ezra Klein in an interview. The Delaware lawmaker said many of the cultural norms surrounding transgender people were likely premature for a lot of Americans. 'We became absolutist — not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement — and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. Part of this is fostered by social media,' McBride said.
