State lawmakers plan to close the 2007 session with a bang – a veto-override vote on Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter’s handling of the state budget.
After huddling with lawyers Thursday, top legislative Democrats decided Ritter cut parts of the budget that he is not allowed to veto.
Ritter on Wednesday signed the $17.8 billion annual state budget, announcing he had eliminated seven “headnotes” and 81 “footnotes” with his power to line-item veto the bill.
Headnotes and footnotes generally give the executive branch instructions on how to handle money lawmakers allocated to programs.
The vote is the latest chapter in a long- running dispute between the legislature and the governor’s office. In 2003, a Republican- controlled legislature sued Republican Gov. Bill Owens over the same issue.
“It’s a legal deal,” said Evan Dreyer, Ritter’s spokesman. “It’s nothing personal, nothing ideological. We’re just trying to find the authority and purview that each branch of government has over the budget.”
For a veto override to pass, two-thirds of the lawmakers would have to support it. In the Senate, where Democrats hold a 20-15 edge, that means 24 votes. In the House, where Democrats hold a 39-26 margin, that means 44 votes.
If the veto override is successful, the issue would probably head back to court.
At the bill-signing ceremony Wednesday, Democrats cheered that Ritter had invited them to the event, but on Thursday, they had second thoughts.
“We have three options: Leave it alone, a veto override or to sue him,” Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, said.
Tapia said he couldn’t talk about the meeting with the lawyers. The meeting included House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver; Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Jefferson County; and Senate President pro tem Peter Groff, D-Denver.
In June 2006, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled the legislature overstepped its bounds when it used the budget to direct how Owens must spend state money.
But the court also found Owens did not have the authority to line-item veto those spending instructions – leaving both sides room to declare victory, or at least a draw.
Lawmakers are expected to challenge Ritter’s veto of the headnotes portion of the budget. That part includes definitions for words such as “capital outlay,” “full-time equivalent,” “personal services” and “health, life and dental.”
Ritter objected that such instructions are “constitutionally void” because they interfere with the ability of the executive branch to handle the money it is given to work with.
Staff writer Mark P. Couch can be reached at 303-954-1794 or mcouch@denverpost.com.
