Martinez v. Florida Legislature

Supreme Court of Florida
542 So.2d 358 (1989)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The governor's constitutional power to veto a "specific appropriation in a general appropriation bill" does not extend to items detailed only in legislative intent documents or working papers that have not been formally enacted into law. Such supplementary documents are directory, not mandatory, and do not have the force of law.

Facts:

In June 1988, the Florida Legislature adopted chapter 88-555, the general appropriations act.
Accompanying the act were a "summary statement of intent" and "computerized working papers" (intent documents) that provided more specific detail on how lump-sum appropriations were to be spent.
A transmittal letter from the legislative appropriations committee chairs sent the appropriations act and the intent documents to Governor Bob Martinez.
Governor Martinez exercised his veto power on five portions of larger appropriations contained within chapter 88-555.
The specific items and amounts vetoed by Governor Martinez were detailed only in the supplementary intent documents, not in the text of the formally enacted general appropriations act.

Procedural Posture:

The Florida Legislature and several of its members petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus against Governor Martinez to expunge five partial vetoes.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, directing the parties to file a declaratory judgment action in a state trial court (circuit court).
The Legislature sued Governor Martinez in circuit court, seeking a declaration that the partial vetoes were unconstitutional.
Governor Martinez, as defendant, filed a counterclaim against the individual legislators and a cross-claim against the secretary of state and comptroller.
The circuit court granted the Legislature's motion for summary judgment, ordering the vetoes expunged and dismissing the counterclaim and cross-claim.
Governor Martinez, as appellant, appealed the trial court's final judgment to the First District Court of Appeal.
The First District Court of Appeal certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court for immediate resolution, identifying it as involving issues of great public importance.

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 Florida Constitution's provision allowing the governor to veto any "specific appropriation in a general appropriation bill" permit the governor to veto items of expenditure that are detailed only in legislative intent documents and working papers, but not in the text of the general appropriations act itself?

Opinions:

Majority - McDonald, Justice

No. The Florida Constitution does not permit the governor to veto items of expenditure detailed only in legislative intent documents that have not been enacted into law. The governor's veto power is limited to specific appropriations contained in a general appropriations bill. For an appropriation to exist, it must be enacted into law through the constitutionally prescribed process. The court found that the intent documents were not enacted into law, relying on an unambiguous statute providing that the statement of intent "may not allocate or appropriate any funds." Because the vetoed items were not in the bill enacted by the legislature, they were not valid targets for a gubernatorial veto. Therefore, these documents are merely persuasive and directory, not legally binding or mandatory.

Analysis:

This decision strictly interprets the separation of powers in the context of the state budget process, reinforcing the principle that only formally enacted legislation has the force of law. It limits the governor's line-item veto power to the text of the appropriations bill itself, preventing the executive from reaching into legislative work product or planning documents to selectively cancel spending. The ruling clarifies that if the legislature wants to create specific, legally binding appropriations subject to veto, it must include them directly in the text of the appropriations act, not in ancillary documents. This maintains a clear distinction between binding law and non-binding legislative guidance.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Martinez v. Florida Legislature (1989)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"