Jackson v. Sanford
731 S.E.2d 722, 398 S.C. 580, 2011 WL 204816 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the South Carolina Constitution, an "item" of appropriation consists of both the sum of money and its specified purpose. A governor's veto of only one of several funding sources for an appropriation, while leaving the purpose and other funding intact, is an unconstitutional modification of legislation rather than a permissible nullification of an entire item.
Facts:
- The South Carolina General Assembly passed the annual appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010-2011, allocating funds to the State Budget and Control Board ('the Board').
- The total appropriation for the Board was financed by a combination of funds from the state's General Fund and other sources.
- The bill listed the amount to be drawn from the General Fund in a separate column from the total appropriation amount for each expenditure.
- Governor Sanford issued Veto 52, which purported to veto the entire amount of General Funds appropriated to the Board, but not the funds from other sources for the same expenditures.
- In his veto message, Governor Sanford stated the Board had other 'carry-forward funds' and could use cost-cutting to sustain its operations.
- Following the veto, the Board transferred approximately $13.3 million from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund to cover payroll and operating costs that the vetoed General Funds were intended to support.
- Darrick Jackson, the Mayor of Timmonsville, had an interest in the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund for his town's infrastructure projects.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Darrick Jackson, Mayor of Timmonsville, filed a declaratory judgment action directly in the South Carolina Supreme Court, invoking the court's original jurisdiction.
- Jackson sought a ruling that Governor Sanford's Veto 52 was unconstitutional.
- Jackson also challenged the constitutionality of the State Budget and Control Board's subsequent transfer of funds from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund.
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 a governor's veto of only the General Fund portion of a multi-source appropriation, while leaving the purpose of the appropriation and its other funding sources intact, constitute an unconstitutional modification of legislation under Article IV, section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kittredge
Yes, a governor's veto of only one funding source for an appropriation constitutes an unconstitutional modification of legislation. The state constitution grants the governor a negative power to nullify distinct legislative items, not the power to alter or amend them. An appropriation 'item' is defined as the specified sum of money together with the 'object and purpose' for which the appropriation is made. By vetoing only the General Fund portion of the Board's appropriation, Governor Sanford did not veto the objects or purposes of the spending; instead, he effectively reduced the total funding for those purposes. This action modified the legislature's intent rather than nullifying it, thereby exceeding the governor's constitutional veto authority. The veto power requires an all-or-nothing approach to each distinct item; the governor cannot veto a funding source without also vetoing the purpose to which that funding is allocated.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and constrains the executive veto power in South Carolina, particularly regarding the state budget. By defining an appropriation 'item' as an indivisible unit of funding and purpose, the court prevents governors from using the line-item veto to surgically reduce appropriations or effectively rewrite the budget. The ruling strengthens the legislature's 'power of the purse' by forcing the governor to make an up-or-down decision on entire spending items rather than altering them. This precedent will guide future governors and legislatures, ensuring that the veto serves as a tool of nullification, not legislative modification.
