 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bennett v. Napolitano12/4/2003
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 12, 2003, the legislature enacted and transmitted to the governor four bills comprising the state's operating budget for fiscal year 2004 -- the general appropriations bill (House Bill 2531) and three omnibus reconciliation bills (ORBs) consisting of the Public Finance ORB (House Bill 2533), the Education ORB (House Bill 2534), and the Health and Welfare ORB (House Bill 2535).
On June 17, 2003, the governor item vetoed some thirty five separate provisions from the four bills, and, as required, sent a message to both legislative chambers stating the reasons for her vetoes. Ariz. Const. art. V, § 7. On June 19, 2003, with no further action on the vetoed items, the legislature adjourned sine die.
On July 15, 2003, petitioners -- state legislators Ken Bennett, President of the Senate, Franklin "Jake" Flake, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Timothy Bee, Senate Majority Leader, and Eddie Farnsworth, House Majority Leader -- brought this special action challenging the governor's use of the item veto in twelve specified instances and alleging, as to each, that the governor exceeded her veto authority under the Arizona Constitution. On September 4, 2003, petitioners withdrew their challenge to one of the twelve vetoes, leaving eleven.
A. The Provisions Vetoed
Of the eleven vetoes challenged, nine involved provisions in the general appropriations bill, and two pertained, respectively, to provisions in the Education and the Health and Welfare ORBs.
1. The General Appropriations Bill
a. Fixed Lump Sum Reductions
In separate appropriations to five governmental departments in the general appropriations bill, the legislature provided in each instance (a) a single operating allocation, (b) various specifically directed allocations in smaller amounts, and (c) a separate "lump sum reduction." In each appropriation, the lump sum reduction required the particular department to reduce overall spending by a specified sum. The governor item vetoed each of the five lump sum reductions.
b. Other Reductions
The sixth, seventh, and eighth item vetoes directed at the general appropriations bill also involved reductions in funding. In the appropriation to the Department of Health Services, the legislature imposed a $10,000,000 reduction labeled an "offset for receipts." 2003 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 262 § 44. The governor vetoed the offset.
In the appropriation to the Department of Economic Security, the legislature imposed a $14,906,000 reduction for "federal match rate savings." The legislature explained this provision:
The reduction associated with the federal match rate change represents a reduction in the state general fund appropriation associated with temporary changes to the federal matching assistance percentage designed to give fiscal relief to states. There shall be a corresponding $14,906,000 increase in federal expenditure authority to the department.
Id. § 29. The governor vetoed the match rate savings reduction.
In the appropriation to the Department of Health Services, the legislature imposed a contingency reduction to be taken from the allocated funds pursuant to the following formula:
If the department receives more than $1,188,000 in federal 317 monies for vaccines purchase for state fiscal year 2003-2004, the state general fund amount of the state fiscal year 2003-2004 appropriation for the vaccines special line item equal to the amount by which the federal monies exceed $1,188,000 up to $576,000 shall revert to the state general fund.
Id. § 44. Th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|