THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 TAG: 9610290284
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA
SERIES: DECISION 96
SOURCE: BY PAUL SOUTH, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 136 lines
North Carolina is the only state in the Union that does not give its governor some measure of veto power. But that could change if voters approve a constitutional amendment, one of three on the Nov. 5 ballot.
Supporters, like Ran Coble, executive director of the Raleigh-based North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, say allowing veto power will make the governor a full partner in the legislative process.
But opponents, like former lawmaker J. Allen Adams, say a veto would increase conflict between the governor and the General Assembly.
The amendment, approved for the ballot by the General Assembly last year, allows for a basic veto with minimal requirements for legislative override. Under the amendment, only three-fifths of lawmakers who are present and voting at the time of the override can overcome the governor's action, as long as there is a quorum.
Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight, D-Dare, favors the amendment, which was sponsored in the Senate by Roy Cooper, D-Rocky Mount.
``I've supported it for years,'' Basnight said from his Raleigh office Monday. ``I believe it will get the governor more deeply involved in the legislative mix, particularly in the budget process.''
Coble contends that a veto will make the governor more accountable.
``The governor now can pick and choose the bills he wants to take on, and duck other ones,'' Coble says. ``After those bills become law, the governor can blame it on the legislature.
``Veto power would make the governor less an interested observer and more an informed player who will be held accountable for what happens in the legislature. It means the legislature cannot ignore the governor's views, but it also means the governor cannot stand on the sidelines and take all of the credit and none of the blame for what happens.''
Veto power would also provide a safeguard against quickly passed legislation that may be unconstitutional. Coble cited passage of the Speaker Ban Law. Passed in 1962, but declared unconstitutional by a federal district court in 1968, thelaw was aimed at keeping communists from speaking at state colleges.
``The governor is more sensitive generally to constitutional issues,'' Coble said. ``In cases like the Speaker Ban Law, Gov. Terry Sanford said he would have vetoed that bill on constitutional grounds.''
Supporters of the amendment also claim that the veto will restore the balance of power between the state's executive and legislative branches. And, they argue, since 49 other states and the federal government allow the veto, why not North Carolina?
``We're the only state without a veto,'' said Rep. Bill Owens Jr., D-Pasquotank. ``I supported the bill because it will bring greater checks and balances. It allows for the veto, but we also took away some of the governor's appointive powers. Not every bill the General Assembly passes is good law. The veto puts in another safeguard.''
``It is the experience of the 49 other states and the federal government that tells us that veto power will not turn our governors into executive bullies or nay-saying ogres,'' Coble said. ``Over four decades the rate of gubernatorial vetoes has remained low and constant. About 95 percent of all laws passed by states are signed into law by governors.''
Opponents of the amendment say those who contend that the governor has too little clout underestimate the power of the media. A media-savvy chief executive, they say, can dominate the political agenda.
``In soap-opera-like TV coverage of politics, the executive plays the role of leading man. Any questioning of the executive by the legislature, or the print medium, is resented,'' Adams said.
And foes contend, the veto will place too much power in the hands of the executive branch.
``It is true that on average, 5.5 percent of all legislation is vetoed by governors,'' Adams said. ``What the data do not reveal is that governors repeatedly use the threat of veto to accomplish their objectives regarding other bills. Since the legislators are aware that the overwhelming majority of vetoes prevail, a veto is a very effective way of bullying legislators. . . .
``If, in our history, our General Assemblies had been corrupt, inattentive to the problems of our state, indifferent to the needs of the people, or comprised of stupid, ill-advised members who consistently drafted improperly prepared legislation, a veto proposal could have merit,'' said Adams, a Raleigh lawyer. ``It could also have merit if our governors had been inordinately weak and our General Assemblies had used power arrogantly. But neither of those conclusions have characterized the legislatures or the governors of North Carolina.''
Opponents also claim the veto will radically impact campaign financing, and increase conflict between the executive and the legislative branches.
``Individuals and corporations that donate the $4,000 maximum to the governor's campaign already have a good deal of influence on the governor's agenda and they will be even more powerful if the governor has veto power,'' Adams said. ``The present tendency of large contributors to concentrate on the governor's race will be greatly heightened if the governor has veto power over legislation.''
Adams called the veto ``a slap in the face to legislative majorities in the House and Senate.''
He added, ``If North Carolina citizens grant their governor veto powers, he will not only be one of the highest-paid governors in the United States ($123,300 annually, 16th in the country), but also one of the most powerful. With his veto powers added to his existing power, along with his ability to meet in secret with his advisers to determine when to use the veto, the chief executive will become the chief legislator in North Carolina.''
Basnight, however, says the idea does not bother him, and does not believe the veto will cause greater friction between the two branches of government.
``We argue with the governor on things about which we disagree, and we argue with each other in the Senate,'' Basnight said. ``I think that's just part of the governmental process.''
No matter the vote on the issue, Owens said it is time to decide.
``This has been going on for 30 years,'' Owens said. ``Whether the people vote for it or against it, I'll accept their decision. Any controversial issue like this should be left to the public to decide.'' ILLUSTRATION: VETO POWER
The amendment: Grants veto power to the governor. It provides for a
generic veto, with a relatively easy override provision requiring a
vote by three-fifths majority of those present and voting. A quorum
(one-half of those elected plus one) would be required for a veto
vote.
Arguments for:
It's needed to make the governor a full partner in the legislative
process.
It could serve as a check against passage of legislation which has
been rushed through the General Assembly without full deliberation,
or which is not in the public interest.
It could serve as a check on unconstitutional legislation.
It would restore the balance of power between legislative and
executive branches.
Arguments against:
It would create an all-powerful governor and weaken the legislature
as equal branches of government.
It would increase conflict between the governor and lawmakers, and
reduce the need for the governor to rely on persuasion and logic to
deal with the legislature.
It would seriously diminish the separation of powers among the three
branches of government. Deciding the constitutionality of statutes
is a judicial function.
A serious imbalance does not exist because the wide range of
informal powers available to the governor tends to balance
structural weaknesses. by CNB