‘Constitution was not followed': Legislature questions line-item vetoes to Nebraska budget bills
Speaker John Arch of La Vista listens to State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. Aug. 2, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
Editor's note: This story has been updated with response from the Governor's Office.
LINCOLN — The Nebraska Legislature, at least for now, has blanketly rejected four line-item budget vetoes Thursday from Gov. Jim Pillen and questioned whether his objections were constitutionally submitted and whether the vetoes count.
Speaker John Arch of La Vista announced that the Legislature was not in receipt of the actual line-itemed bills — Legislative Bills 261 and 264 — by the end-of-day Wednesday. Under the Nebraska Constitution, if the Legislature is in session, vetoes must be filed with the Clerk of the Legislature within five days, excluding Sunday.
If the Legislature is out of session when the bills are returned, vetoed bills are filed with the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office.
Pillen announces $14.5 million in vetoes from Nebraska budget, 83% of it from Supreme Court
The Legislature did not receive the budget bills with the line-item objections until Thursday morning, hours after the midnight deadline and a half-day after the bills had been delivered to the Secretary of State's Office but not the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, Arch said.
'As such, we don't believe that we can accept these vetoes,' Arch said.
Laura Strimple, a spokesperson for Pillen, said the governor took action on LB 261 at 1:08 p.m. Wednesday and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. Wednesday. She said Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.'
Strimple said the bills were sent to both the Secretary of State's Office and the Clerk's Office by end-of-day Wednesday.
'It is unfortunate that the Legislature is giving up its opportunity to take action on the Governor's veto and has, by unilaterally returning the mainline budget to the Governor, created an impasse,' Strimple said. 'We will consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel on next steps to effectuate the law.'
Arch, upon learning of Strimple's statement, said the Legislature's position stood. He said he didn't know if the Governor's Office would sue to enforce the vetoes, but he hopes it won't.
Speaking with reporters, Arch said that to his knowledge, nothing like this has happened before and that the Legislature would be gathering facts on the situation.
'I'm hoping that in our discussions, we can resolve the issue,' Arch said. 'But on the plain reading of the Constitution, we have concerns.'
The 2025-27 budget bills have faced continued twists and turns accelerated by a major projected budget shortfall of at least $630 million by the time the budget bills passed last week. Hundreds of millions of dollars were moved around to fill the hole, including $147 million from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve fund.
Pillen's vetoes sought to reduce state spending by $14.5 million, $12 million of which was cut from the allotment to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which court leaders said could be detrimental to various services.
State Sen. Rob Clements of Elmwood, chair of the Legislature's Appropriations Committee, said the budget-writing process has been stressful but that he was 'pleased' with ending at a balanced budget. Of Pillen's vetoes, he said he agreed 'the Constitution was not followed.'
'What happened with the delivery of the vetoes is not a problem with the budget,' Clements said.
Now in his ninth year on the committee, and in his final two-year budget, Clements said he enjoys numbers and that it is 'a real relief' to have reached the end.
Multiple Appropriations Committee members were joyful at the conclusion, with some grinning ear to ear, hugging one another and pumping their fists in the air after Arch announced the conclusion. Up until that moment, lawmakers and lobbyists were abuzz that, for seemingly the first time, vetoes might have been stopped without a vote of the Legislature.
Veto overrides take at least 30 votes and often feature intense gubernatorial pressure, often behind the scenes, to flip votes on legislation that often first passes with more than 30 votes.
State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha, who will seek to override a veto of LB 287, a bill trying to crack down on bedbugs in Omaha and give the Omaha City Council additional oversight of the Omaha Housing Authority, took a different view.
'I wish the veto for LB 287 was invalid too, but overall it's karma,' McKinney said.
State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, a new face on the Appropriations Committee this year, said she feels the Governor's Office would try to make the vetoes stick anyway. She said the drama would end up in front of the people of Nebraska.
'I told everybody this morning, 'Let's just descend into the chaos.' And they took me literally,' Cavanaugh told the Nebraska Examiner.
She continued: 'I mean, process matters, the Constitution matters. We're upholding the Constitution, which is our job, and that's pretty much it.'
Nebraska Examiner reporter Juan Salinas II contributed to this report.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing
Always looking to provoke a crisis, Donald Trump has federalized 2,000 soldiers of the California National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor to put down a rebellion in Los Angeles that doesn't exist. And Trump is acting counter to federal law in doing so, which is no surprise for him. After demonstrators gathered in L.A. to protest ICE raids, some idiots in the crowd threw rocks at the immigration law enforcement officers. That's a crime and is not free speech. But the president used the sporadic violence, which was quickly quelled, to overstep his legal authority. On Saturday, he issued a directive claiming: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Then, latching on to his own word 'rebellion,' he invoked a federal statute, 10 U.S. Code § 12406, covering the National Guard. The law is brief. It says that 'Whenever 1) the United States is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; 2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or 3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' There's no invasion, there's no rebellion and ICE is able to carry out its functions. And there is no lawlessness in the streets of L.A. that can't be contained by the local L.A. County sheriff's department, which has almost 10,000 sworn and armed deputies and the LAPD, which has almost 9,000 sworn and armed cops. If those law enforcement professionals need help, California Gov. Gavin Newsom could activate the National Guard. But Newsom didn't call up the Guard for backup because the soldiers weren't needed. That Trump went around Newsom, who he 'cleverly' calls 'Newscum,' is something that hasn't been done in 60 years, when Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1965 because segregationist Gov. George Wallace wouldn't protect civil rights demonstrators. There, Wallace was trying to defy the federal courts and the federal government. This is nothing like that. Trump says 'It's about law and order,' but he's the one who is going against the law and against regular order. And he's also talking about bringing in active duty Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton. That is also against the law, 18 U.S. Code § 1385. This statue is just a single sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' 'Posse comitatus,' or 'posse' for short, are non-law enforcement persons acting as such. The military cannot be so used on the word of even the president. Trump should relent and demobilize the Guardsmen he wrongly brought into L.A. and let local and state officials secure the streets. _____
2 hours ago
The ACLU demands the US release and return a Dominican woman living legally in Puerto Rico
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- In late May, a 47-year-old woman from the Dominican Republic was detained by police in Puerto Rico after she entered a municipal building seeking a permit to sell ice cream on the beach to support herself. Upon being turned over to federal agents, the Dominican woman presented her passport, driver's license and work permits that proved she was living in the U.S. territory legally, her attorney Ángel Robles and the American Civil Liberties Union of Puerto Rico, said Monday. Despite the documents presented, authorities recently transferred her to Texas as part of a federal crackdown on migrants living illegally in U.S. jurisdictions. The woman, whose first name is Aracelis, has not been fully identified because she is a victim of domestic violence. Aracelis is among hundreds of people who have been detained in Puerto Rico since large-scale arrests began in late January, surprising many in the U.S. territory that has long welcomed migrants. Robles and the ACLU demanded Aracelis' release and return to Puerto Rico. 'It's outrageous,' Robles said in a phone interview. 'No charges have been filed against her, and she is not in the system.' Because her name does not appear in a federal database, Robles' request for a bond hearing was denied. 'This case is one of unspeakable abuse,' said Annette Martínez Orabona, the ACLU director in Puerto Rico. The case has fueled already simmering anger against the administration of Puerto Rico Gov. Jenniffer González Colón and local authorities who have been working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to arrest those believed to be living illegally in the U.S. territory. In a letter sent Monday to the governor and the island's justice secretary, the ACLU accused Puerto Rico's government of violating the Constitution and local laws by providing ICE and U.S. Homeland Security with confidential information on nearly 6,000 immigrants. It also accused ICE of using that data to go on a 'fishing expedition' that it called 'arbitrary and abusive.' A spokesman for Homeland Security Investigations did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In Puerto Rico, undocumented immigrants are allowed to open bank accounts and obtain a special driver's license. The ACLU in Puerto Rico also accused González Colón's administration of not providing protocols to local government agencies for how to deal with such requests from the federal government. The ACLU requested, among other things, that Puerto Rico's government issue an executive order barring public agencies from collaborating with ICE subpoenas not accompanied by a court order. A spokeswoman for the governor did not immediately return a message for comment.
2 hours ago
Minnesota budget deal cuts health care for adults who entered the US illegally
ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Adults living in the U.S. illegally will be excluded from a state-run health care program under an overall budget deal that the closely divided Minnesota Legislature convened to pass in a special session Monday. Repealing a 2023 state law that made those immigrants eligible for the MinnesotaCare program for the working poor was a priority for Republicans in the negotiations that produced the budget agreement. The Legislature is split 101-100, with the House tied and Democrats holding just a one-seat majority in the Senate, and the health care compromise was a bitter pill for Democrats to accept. The change is expected to affect about 17,000 residents. After an emotional near four-hour debate, the House aroved the bill 68-65. Under the agreement, the top House Democratic leader, Melissa Hortman, of Brooklyn Park, was the only member of her caucus to vote yes. The bill then went to the Senate, where it passed 37-30. Democratic Majority Leader Erin Murphy, of St. Paul, called it 'a wound on the soul of Minnesota,' but kept her promise to vote yes as part of the deal, calling it "among the most painful votes I've ever taken." Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, has promised to sign the legislation, and all 13 other bills scheduled for action in the special session, to complete a $66 billion, two-year budget that will take effect July 1. 'This is 100% about the GOP campaign against immigrants,' said House Democratic Floor Leader Jamie Long, of Minneapolis, who voted no. 'From Trump's renewed travel ban announced this week, to his effort to expel those with protected status, to harassing students here to study, to disproportionate military and law enforcement responses that we've seen from Minneapolis to L.A., this all comes back to attacking immigrants and the name of dividing us.' But GOP Rep. Jeff Backer, of Browns Valley, the lead author of the bill, said taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize health care for people who aren't in the country legally. Backer said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has proposed freezing enrollment for immigrants without legal status in a similar state-funded program and that Illinois' Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, has proposed cutting a similar program. He said residents can still buy health insurance on the private market regardless of their immigration status. 'This is about being fiscally responsible,' Backer said. Enrollment by people who entered the country illegally in MinnesotaCare has run triple the initial projections, which Republicans said could have pushed the costs over $600 million over the next four years. Critics said the change won't save any money because those affected will forego preventive care and need much more expensive care later. 'People don't suddenly stop getting sick when they don't have insurance, but they do put off seeking care until a condition gets bad enough to require a visit to the emergency room, increasing overall health care costs for everyone,' Bernie Burnham, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, told reporters at a news conference organized by the critics. Walz and legislative leaders agreed on the broad framework for the budget over four weeks ago, contrasting the bipartisan cooperation that produced it with the deep divisions at the federal level in Washington. But with the tie in the House and the razor-thin Senate Democratic majority, few major policy initiatives got off the ground before the regular session ended May 19. Leaders announced Friday that the details were settled and that they had enough votes to pass everything in the budget package.
