EDITORIAL
Veto override session need not be contentious

There is the strong aroma of political conflict in the proposal, looking more certain by the day, for a special session of the legislature to override several of Gov. Linda Lingle's vetoes.

That need not be the case.

There are significant policy differences between the legislature and the governor, but in most cases it is a matter of degree or direction rather than outright disagreement.

For instance, Lingle vetoed a bill that would make voidable all private restrictions on activities on agricultural land that were not for the purpose of protecting environmental and cultural resources. Lingle said she agreed with the Legislature's intent — to protect agriculture from inroads — but felt the measure was too sweeping.

In another case, one of the veto overrides under consideration would reverse Lingle's decision to cut $3.6 million from social service agencies.

A number of agencies protested at the State Capitol over the cuts.

But while Lingle cut the $3.6 million, she approved other social spending items of a similar nature. So the issue is not over philosophy; it is a difference of opinion on how much the state can afford to spend in this area.

Imagine if key lawmakers and the governor sat down before the special session to work out a compromise on these and other issues. What a signal that would give to taxpayers that politicians on every floor of the Capitol had the public's interest foremost in their mind.

There are, of course, legitimate differences of opinion that cannot be resolved, which is why we have the (rarely used) process of legislative overrides of a veto. But it's a good bet that most of the differences are amenable to compromise.

Why not give it a shot?