by Lowman S. Henry | October 28, 2005

Rendell alters the balance of power

Lost amid the furor over the pay grab and such high profile issues as tax reform, is a titanic battle – the outcome of which could dramatically affect the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government in Pennsylvania.

At issue is whether or not the Governor can “blue line” or veto select portions of policy language in an appropriations bill passed by the General Assembly.  It is clear that the Governor has the authority to line item veto specifically appropriated dollar amounts, but selectively vetoing the language of an appropriations bill may not pass constitutional muster.

The matter is now being brought to a head by Senate President Robert Jubelirer and House Speaker John Perzel who have filed suit in Commonwealth Court seeking to have Governor Ed Rendell’s veto of selective language in several recent bills overturned on the grounds that he lacks the constitutional authority to do so.

How a bill is worded can, and usually does, significantly affect the ultimate impact of legislation once it becomes law.  There are times where the entire practical outcome of a bill can hinge on just one word.  (Think Bill Clinton and the meaning of “is.”)  Clearly, a Governor’s unfettered ability to strike language at will out of an already passed law dramatically alters the power relationship between the two branches of government and tilts it strongly in favor of the executive.

In one of the particular bills at issue, Governor Rendell struck language designed to ensure that state tax dollars would not be utilized to pay for abortions and abortion counseling.  By striking the language, Rendell single-handedly altered a long standing policy on one of the most hotly debated and divisive issues of the day.  In fact, in his veto message, the governor flatly stated the language was “bad public policy.”

A practice which allows a Governor – any Governor – to alter after-the-fact already passed legislation is disturbing enough, but for the Governor to exercise a policy veto over appropriations language completely perverts the separation of power doctrine inherent in the state constitution.

Senator Jubelirer cut to the core of the matter when he said “This is an extremely important showdown, with the relative power of the Governor to dictate spending versus the power of state legislators to restrict spending riding on the outcome.”  Jubelirer said he accepts the Governor’s power to reduce or eliminate specific dollar amounts, but views as unconstitutional the striking of policy language.

The Pennsylvania Constitution, which incorporates many of the governmental principles inherent in the U.S. Constitution, was drafted to deliberately make it difficult to enact bills into law in an effort to ensure public input and to restrict government involvement in our lives.  That is why certain powers were reserved for the legislative branch, and others granted to the executive – so that neither would gain an undue amount of influence.

Governor Rendell has clearly stepped over the line by vetoing policy language in an appropriations bill.  Senator Jubelirer and Speaker Perzel are absolutely correct in taking this challenge to the third branch of government, the judicial branch which must referee the dispute.

As the court weighs the arguments, it should take into consideration the fact that Rendell’s action, gathering unto himself powers not specifically granted to him by the state constitution, also represents a defacto trampling of the court’s own role of being the arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not.

If Ed Rendell is successful in this power grab, Penn’s Woods will have come full circle from being the birthplace of independence from King George, III to a new monarchy under King Edward, I.