On Friday, Ohio Republican legislative leaders in Ohio filed suit challenging the validity of newly elected Governor Ted Strickland's veto of a bill outgoing Governor Bob Taft sought to let become law without his signature. According to the suit, technically filed against the new Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, Strickland could not have vetoed the bill because it became law before he took office. As I detailed here, at issue is how to count the number of days after the end of the legislative session for a bill to become law without the Governor's signature.
instead of suing Strickland for his veto on his first day in office, Jan. 8, House Speaker Jon A. Husted and Senate President Bill M. Harris took on Brunner, arguing that she did not have the power to return the bill to him after former Gov. Bob Taft filed it with the secretary of state’s office Jan. 5.
Husted and Harris are asking the Supreme Court to force Brunner to change her records to show the bill was not vetoed and allow it to take effect 90 days after it was filed.
"Brunner failed to carry out the secretary of state’s constitutional and statutory duties to maintain, preserve and keep safe (the bill) as filed by Governor Taft," the lawsuit said. . . .
[Brunner's] position is that the 10-day window for a governor to sign a bill, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature had not expired when Strickland asked her to return the bill.
Here is additional coverage of the suit from the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Associated Press.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Ohio Legislators File Sunday Suit:
- Are Sundays "Days"?
"If a bill is not returned by the governor within ten days, Sundays excepted, after being presented to him, it becomes law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the general assembly by adjournment prevents its return; in which case, it becomes law unless, within ten days after such adjournment, it is filed by him, with his objections in writing, in the office of the secretary of state."
The problem is whether the explicit "Sundays excepted" phrase from the first part should be implied in the second part which just says "ten days." If it is, then the veto works; if not, the law is good.
I think a court will want to find some rationale the legislature might have had for not putting "Sundays excepted" in the second part of the provision. If it cannot find a rationale, it will likely assume the "Sundays excepted" language applies to the second "ten days" clause.
One rationale has to do with the fact that the second clause only applies when the legislature has adjourned. Since the "Sundays excepted" phrase applies to when the legislature is still in session, one could reason that the return of bills should not interfere with the day of rest. On the other hand, when the legislature is not in session, Sunday is like any other day as far as the legislature is concerned, so it might as well not be excluded from the calculation.
Almost, but not quite. For the veto to be valid, both (a) Sundays must be excepted, AND (b) the days must be counted from when the bill was presented to the governor (Dec. 27) instead of from the adjournment of the legislature (Dec. 26).
But rather than sign the bill, he let it languish. He took a position out of apathy, rather than out of conviction. And it will cost the taxpayers of Ohio several hundred thousand dollars to sort out Taft's exiting spinelessness.
I agree that Taft was a disaster. Voters need to learn to stop electing pols on the basis of family name.
Some of the blame needs to be shared with the legislature, though. If they really believed in tort reform, they could have passed this bill at any time in the past 4-8 years. There was no reason to wait until the last 10 days of a lame-duck session.