House of Representatives v. Martinez
555 So.2d 839 (1990)
Rule of Law:
Under the Florida Constitution, the Governor's line-item veto power is limited to vetoing a "specific appropriation," which must be an identifiable, integrated fund for a specified purpose that appears on the face of the legislative act. This power does not extend to vetoing qualifications or restrictions that lack a specific dollar amount, nor does it allow the Governor to veto one of several funding sources for a single purpose, as this would constitute an unconstitutional reduction of an appropriation.
Facts:
- The Florida Legislature passed the 1989 general appropriations act, which contained various line-item appropriations and proviso language directing how certain funds were to be spent.
- Governor Bob Martinez exercised his veto power on seven distinct portions of the act.
- One veto targeted proviso language authorizing the Attorney General to exceed pay grades for certain positions, but the proviso itself did not state a specific dollar amount. The Governor's veto message unilaterally assigned a value to it.
- Another veto targeted proviso language establishing conditions for paying unused annual leave credits, which also did not identify a specific sum of money.
- A third veto was directed at proviso language creating special health benefits for legislative members, to which the Governor's veto message assigned a nominal value of '$1'.
- Three other vetoes targeted specific funding sources for line-item appropriations that were also funded by other sources, effectively reducing the total appropriation for a stated purpose without eliminating it entirely.
- One veto targeted a $3,900,000 portion of a $4,000,000 appropriation, leaving the remaining $100,000 portion for a different program intact.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida House of Representatives filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directly with the Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court.
- The petition sought an order compelling the Florida Secretary of State to expunge several of Governor Bob Martinez's vetoes from the official records of the 1989 general appropriations act.
- The petition also requested that the Florida Comptroller be ordered to adjust state financial records to reflect the expunctions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Governor's line-item veto power under Article III, Section 8(a) of the Florida Constitution permit the veto of (1) proviso language that does not state a specific sum of money on its face, or (2) a specific funding source when multiple sources are designated for a single legislative purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kogan
No. The Governor's veto power does not permit the veto of proviso language without a specific sum on its face, nor does it allow the veto of a single funding source from a multi-source appropriation. The court reasoned that a 'specific appropriation' must be an identifiable, integrated fund allocated for a specified purpose, with the exact sum of money appearing on the face of the act. Allowing the Governor to assign a value to a proviso or to selectively veto funding sources would improperly transform the negative veto power into a positive power to amend or reduce legislative appropriations, violating the separation of powers doctrine. The veto is a power to nullify legislative intent, not to alter or amend it. Therefore, if the legislature's purpose is to expend a total amount from several sources for a single purpose, the Governor must veto all or none of the funding for that purpose.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice McDonald
No, as to vetoes of provisos without identifiable sums, but Yes, as to vetoes of specific funding sources. The justice agreed that vetoes of proviso language without a specified dollar amount were unconstitutional. However, he argued that when the legislature appropriates a specific sum of money from a particular funding source for a stated purpose, that sum constitutes a distinct and specific line item subject to veto, even if other sources also fund the same general purpose. He would have upheld the vetoes of individual funding sources.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Grimes
No, as to vetoes of provisos without identifiable sums, but Yes, as to vetoes of specific funding sources. The justice agreed with the majority that vetoes of provisos lacking specific monetary amounts were invalid. However, he dissented regarding the veto of individual funding sources, arguing that the majority misread precedent. He asserted that a line item appropriating a specific dollar amount from a specific fund for a specific purpose meets the definition of a 'specific appropriation' and is therefore vetoable, regardless of whether other funds are also appropriated for the same purpose.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and constrains the Governor's line-item veto power in Florida, reinforcing the legislature's 'power of the purse.' By requiring a specific sum to be present on the face of the act and by prohibiting the veto of individual funding sources for a single legislative purpose, the court prevents the executive from effectively rewriting or reducing appropriations. This holding strengthens the separation of powers by ensuring the veto remains a negative tool for nullification rather than a positive tool for legislative amendment. It forces the Governor into an 'all-or-nothing' choice on multi-funded items, preserving legislative intent regarding the total level of funding for a program.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: House of Representatives v. Martinez (1990)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"