Thompson v. Graham
481 So.2d 1212 (1985)
Rule of Law:
A bill that contains numerous, distinct appropriations for a major area of state expenditure, such as public education capital projects, qualifies as a 'general appropriation bill' under the Florida Constitution, thus subjecting its specific appropriations to the governor's line-item veto power, even if the bill also contains substantive, non-appropriation provisions.
Facts:
- The 1985 Florida legislature enacted Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 848 (CS/SB 848).
- CS/SB 848 amended state statutes related to education financing and facilities (chapters 235 and 203, Florida Statutes).
- The bill also authorized and provided funds for numerous specific Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) projects.
- Section 35 of the bill contained eighty-six distinct funding items for these projects, totaling over half a billion dollars.
- In June 1985, Governor D. Robert Graham approved the bill but vetoed several of the specific appropriations listed within Section 35.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida House of Representatives filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court of Florida.
- The petition sought to compel the Secretary of State to expunge Governor Graham's line-item vetoes from the state's official records.
- The governor responded and filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the House's capacity and standing to sue.
- James Harold Thompson, Speaker of the House, joined the lawsuit as a citizen and taxpayer of Florida.
- The Supreme Court of Florida exercised its original jurisdiction to hear the petition.
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 legislative act that authorizes and provides funding for numerous specific public education capital outlay projects, while also containing substantive amendments to state law, constitute a 'general appropriation bill' under Article III, Section 8(a) of the Florida Constitution, thereby permitting the governor to veto specific appropriations within it?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, J.
Yes. A bill containing numerous specific appropriations for a broad area of public spending, such as educational capital projects, is considered a general appropriations bill for the purposes of the governor's veto power. The court reasoned that 'authorizing and providing funding' for eighty-six specific projects totaling over half a billion dollars is functionally equivalent to 'appropriating.' Unlike the situation in Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, where an appropriation was merely incidental to a general law, the appropriations here were a primary purpose of the bill. The court concluded that the 1968 constitutional revision was meant to prevent governors from vetoing qualifications without vetoing the related appropriation, not to narrow the definition of bills subject to the line-item veto. Therefore, the governor's exercise of the line-item veto was a valid use of his constitutional authority.
Concurring - Boyd, C.J.
Yes. The authorizations for capital projects in the bill are 'specific appropriations in a general appropriation bill' and are thus subject to the governor's item veto. There is no meaningful constitutional distinction between funding projects from current revenues versus bond proceeds; both are appropriations of taxpayer money. The fact that the bill authorized over eighty separate projects for approximately $500 million is sufficient to qualify it as a 'general appropriations bill' for veto purposes, as the constitution does not require the legislature to consolidate all appropriations into a single bill.
Concurring - Shaw, J.
Yes. The governor's line-item veto power applies because 'general appropriation bills' under the veto provision is indistinguishable from 'Laws making appropriations for... current expenses of the state' under the single-subject rule. However, the entire act is unconstitutional because it violates the single-subject rule of Article III by improperly combining substantive legal amendments with appropriations for state expenses. While the vetoes are technically permissible on an appropriations bill, the underlying bill itself is constitutionally flawed.
Dissenting - Adkins, J.
No. The 1968 constitutional revision narrowed the governor's line-item veto power from 'any bills making appropriations' to only 'general appropriation bills.' The majority ignores this clear textual change. A bill like CS/SB 848, which contains substantial non-appropriation provisions, does not qualify as a 'general appropriations law' under Article III, section 12. The majority's decision improperly expands the governor's power beyond what the constitution grants.
Dissenting - Ehrlich, J.
No. A 'general appropriation bill,' as defined by long-standing precedent like Amos v. Moseley, is a law making appropriations for 'salaries of public officers and other current expenses of the state.' CS/SB 848, which funds capital projects rather than salaries and general expenses, does not fit this definition. Therefore, it is not a general appropriation bill, and the governor's line-item veto power does not apply; he must either approve or veto the entire bill. This narrow construction correctly limits the extraordinary line-item veto power to the main state budget bill to prevent governmental paralysis.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the definition of a 'general appropriation bill' in Florida, broadening it beyond just the single, comprehensive annual budget. The decision establishes that any bill with a primary purpose of making numerous, substantial appropriations for a broad public function can be subject to the governor's line-item veto. This strengthens the executive's fiscal authority by allowing targeted vetoes in major funding bills, thereby preventing the legislature from 'logrolling' or shielding specific projects from veto by packaging them with substantive law. Consequently, this precedent impacts legislative drafting strategies for any bill involving significant state expenditures.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Thompson v. Graham (1985)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"