Government dukes it out in the open

By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

During the brief debate during the Legislature's override of Gov. Cayetano's veto of the sexual consent bill, there were several mentions of the historic nature of the event.

After all, this was the first time in more than 40 years that the Legislature saw fit to override a gubernatorial veto. It was an important moment in legislative history, the orators declared. A chance to show backbone and to demonstrate that the executive branch cannot expect to run roughshod over the legislative branch.

That's all fine, but in truth it makes a poor reason to rationalize the veto override. This power was not designed as a tool for muscle-flexing; it was designed to fine-tune the balance of powers between these two branches.

The sexual consent veto was overridden because the legislators became convinced that there would be an avalanche of public outrage if they did not act. And that is legit: When the two branches disagree on a matter of policy, they have a way to duke it out. The governor can veto and the Legislature, through a super-majority, can override.

But rolling out the occasional veto as a kind of gubernatorial smack-down? Come on.

From statehood through this year, there have been probably 500 vetoes or so, none until now overridden. In a few cases, the state Legislature reconvened to amend a measure to meet the concerns of a governor's veto, but never before an override.

Why is that?

The answer rests in the new parliamentary power being exerted by the House Republicans. With 19 members, they cannot pass bills, but they can pull them out of committee or force to the floor other issues of concern.

What this means is that ticklish issues (such as the age-of-consent matter) cannot be as easily dealt with in back rooms, or through quiet executive-legislative deal-making.

In raw political terms, there have been many "overrides" of gubernatorial vetoes over the years, but we just never saw it happen in public. House or Senate leaders would advise governors that a certain proposal or a certain appointment, say, would be "dead on arrival" in the Legislature.

So the bill or name would simply never come forth.

Or the governor, usually through an intermediary, would advise the Legislature that a certain bill or spending proposal was politically doomed to a veto. So changes would be made ahead of time and the confrontation would be avoided.

In short, the balance-of-powers game was played informally, quietly and with little fanfare.

But the political power shift in the Legislature has made this less easy to accomplish. You can bet we will see more of these confrontations tumble bloodily into public view.

And it might be healthy.

Now, confrontation for the sake of counting political coup against the other side is unworthy. The public has little interest in who "wins" a political battle. It simply wants results.

But public accountability does matter. If that is where the Legislature is headed, we will all be better for it.