Where governors can't say no: veto-proof majorities found in 22 states

In today’s Daily Brew, Ballotpedia brings you another exclusive analysis examining the veto override power in all 50 state legislatures, a federal cou [View this email in your browser]( [Ballotpedia](   [Facebook](   [Twitter](   [Ballotpedia's Daily Brew]( Exclusive look at veto-proof majorities and party politics In a new report, Ballotpedia examines the veto override power in all 50 state legislatures. A veto override occurs when a state legislature votes—usually by supermajority—to bypass a governor’s objections to a bill it passed. In the report, we identify 22 states with veto-proof majorities, the rules and procedures for veto overrides in each state, and examples of conflicts between governors and state legislatures that involve the veto override power.   Twenty-two state legislatures—17 Republican and five Democratic—have veto-proof majorities, which are majorities large enough to override vetoes without any votes from the minority party. There are three states—Massachusetts, Maryland, and North Carolina—where one party has a veto-proof majority in the state legislature and the other party controls the governor’s office. Massachusetts and Maryland have Democratic-controlled legislatures and Republican governors, while North Carolina has a Republican-controlled legislature and a Democratic governor. The rules for overriding vetoes vary by state and are established by a state’s constitution. Thirty-six states require a two-thirds vote by each chamber to override vetoes. This is the same margin that the U.S. Congress needs to override presidential vetoes. Seven states require a three-fifths vote by each chamber. This includes Nebraska, which requires a three-fifths vote in its unicameral legislature. Six states require a majority vote in each chamber. Ballotpedia also examined the procedures in 25 states that permit overrides for vetoes that occur after the legislature has adjourned. Conflicts between governors and state legislatures often involve the veto override power. Ballotpedia has identified several governor-legislature conflicts from 2017. These include a series of overrides by the North Carolina General Assembly that Gov. Roy Cooper (D) says have weakened his executive powers, an override by the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature that rolled back tax cuts supported by Gov. Sam Brownback (R), and an override by the Democratic-controlled Illinois General Assembly that raised taxes and passed Illinois’ first budget since 2015 over the objections of Gov. Bruce Rauner (R). Check back next week for updates on the Illinois budget conflict as the state House is expected to address a separate Rauner veto of a funding formula used to distribute state aid to public schools. The state Senate voted to override Rauner’s veto on August 13. [More on veto overrides in state legislatures]( [Texas Politics] On August 15, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a unanimous ruling finding that remedial district maps for congressional districts 27 and 35, which were adopted by the Texas Legislature in 2013, had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent. The court ordered state officials to notify the court within three days of the legislature's intent to draft and implement new remedial maps. If the legislature declines to do so, the court will reconvene on September 5, 2017, to discuss other possible remedies. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said he plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. Texas' congressional district maps have been the subject of litigation since they were adopted in the summer of 2011 by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed by then-Gov. Rick Perry (R). After the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the maps were drawn with discriminatory intent in September 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas stopped their implementation and attempted to draw temporary maps for the 2012 midterm elections. However, in January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this order, finding that the district court had exceeded its authority. In February 2012, the district court issued new temporary maps to be used in the 2012 election. In 2013, the Texas Legislature approved remedial district maps that were signed into law by Gov. Perry and are the subject of the August 15 court ruling. In early 2017, the district court ruled that the original 2011 maps for congressional and state House districts had been drawn with an intent to dilute the voting strength of racial minority groups, a violation of federal law. This ruling did not apply to the 2013 maps; however, opponents of the 2011 maps said that the 2013 maps, like the original maps, represented an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. State officials denied this, maintaining that the remedial maps were substantially the same as the temporary maps issued by the court for the 2012 elections. Texas has 36 members in its congressional delegation: 25 Republicans and 11 Democrats. The 27th Congressional District is represented by Republican Blake Farenthold. The 35th Congressional District is represented by Democrat Lloyd Doggett. [Redistricting in Texas]( → [Recall Elections - Political News] Changes to recall election laws in California were halted in court on August 14. Justice Vance Raye of the Third District of the California Courts of Appeal issued a ruling that prevents changes in recall election laws included in the state’s 2018 fiscal year budget from being enforced until after the court has resolved the outstanding legal issues surrounding the changes. The changes—which included establishing an election cost estimation process that had no definitive timeline—would have likely increased the time it takes for a recall election to be called. This would have possibly allowed state Sen. Josh Newman (D)—the subject of a Republican recall effort due to his support for an increase in the state’s gas tax—to have his recall election on the same day as the statewide primary in June 2018. The statewide primary was expected to attract higher Democratic turnout and increase Newman’s chances of surviving the recall. According to the Los Angeles Times, Newman’s recall election could now be held sometime during November 2017 or in the months that follow. Proponents need to gather 63,593 valid signatures before October 16, 2017, to trigger the recall election. As of August 2017, more than enough signatures had been gathered and most were awaiting verification by county officials. The recall law changes were originally challenged in a July 20 lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Republican activists supporting the Newman recall effort. The Newman recall was initiated in April 2017 by former San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio (R). According to DeMaio, Newman’s recall is intended to break the two-thirds Democratic majority in California needed to increase taxes. It began after the legislature passed SB 1, which raised the state’s gasoline tax in order to pay for infrastructure projects. Newman was chosen for recall before other Democrats who supported SB 1 due to his slim margin of victory in 2016. In the 2016 elections, he flipped the traditionally Republican District 29 when he defeated former Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang (R) by less than 1 percent of the vote. A total of 18 states allow state legislators to be recalled. The Newman recall is one of seven state legislative recall efforts in 2017. Fellow California Democrat and state Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is also being targeted for recall. The other states with state legislative recalls currently underway are Michigan and Nevada. An effort to recall a Washington state legislator was dismissed earlier in the year. Thus far in 2017, Ballotpedia has tracked 183 state and local recalls, of which 20 have been successful. [More on the Josh Newman recall]( → [State legislative recalls]( →   Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers. The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns. [Donate Securely Online]( Decide which emails you receive from Ballotpedia. [Unsubscribe or adjust your preference](   [Facebook](   [Twitter](