Danny Homan, Rich Taylor, Jerry Kearns, Mark Smith, Thomas Courtney, Janet Petersen, Bruce Hunter, Curt Hanson, Tony Bisignano, Herman Quirmbach, Dick Dearden, Art Staed, Ako Abdul-Samad, Jo Oldson, Ruth Ann Gaines, Sharon Steckman, Todd Taylor, Mary Gaskill, Kirsten Running-Marquardt, Timi Brown-Powers, Dave Jacoby, Pam Jochum, Matt McCoy, Michael Gronstal, and Bruce Bearinger v. Terry E. Branstad
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 100
Iowa2016Background
- In 2015 the Iowa Legislature passed appropriation bills funding Clarinda and Mount Pleasant Mental Health Institutes; the institutes had been closed June 30, 2015 and many state employees laid off.
- The Governor signed the bills but used his item veto to eliminate the specific appropriations for Clarinda and Mount Pleasant, explaining policy reasons for closure and overlapping provisions.
- AFSCME Iowa Council 61 president and 20 legislators sued, seeking injunctive relief and mandamus, alleging the vetoes exceeded the Governor’s constitutional authority and violated statutes (Iowa Code §§ 226.1, 218.1) that plaintiffs said mandated continued operation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Governor, concluding the vetoes were valid exercises of the item veto and dismissed the petition; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Iowa Supreme Court held the appeal was timely (plaintiffs’ Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2) motion was proper), the case was not moot despite lack of later appropriations, and affirmed that the item veto did not exceed constitutional authority because the relied-on statutes do not mandate perpetual operation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appeal timely / jurisdictional tolling by Rule 1.904(2)? | Homan argued the motion to enlarge/amend tolled the appeal deadline because it sought rulings the district court omitted. | Branstad argued the postjudgment motion was improper and did not toll the appeal deadline. | Proper — motion was timely and sought rulings on legal issues not decided by the court; appeal timely. |
| Is the case moot because later legislature did not re-appropriate funds? | Homan: statutes and constitution still in force, so case not moot. | Branstad: lack of subsequent appropriations renders relief impossible and moot. | Not moot — statutory and constitutional provisions remain and present justiciable issues. |
| Were the vetoed provisions proper items subject to the item veto? | Homan: disputed scope but conceded these were appropriation items. | Branstad: vetoes targeted items within appropriation bills and fit article III §16. | Held — undisputed that vetoed provisions were items within appropriation bills and thus subject to item veto. |
| Do Iowa Code §§ 226.1 or 218.1 limit the Governor’s item veto (i.e., do they mandate perpetual operation)? | Homan: statutes mandate continued funding/operation; veto therefore violated Governor’s duty under art. IV, §9 to faithfully execute laws. | Branstad: statutes name institutions and governance but do not mandate perpetual operation or limit item veto power. | Held — statutes do not mandate perpetual existence or constrain item veto; Governor’s item veto did not exceed constitutional authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Olsen, 794 N.W.2d 285 (Iowa 2011) (timeliness of posttrial motions and appeal deadlines)
- Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 832 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2013) (standards for tolling appeal deadlines by postjudgment motions)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (effect of posttrial motions on appeal timing)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (scope and propriety of Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904 motions)
- Welsh v. Branstad, 470 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 1991) (distinguishing adjudicative vs. legislative facts for item-veto review)
- Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2004) (interpretation of article III §16 item-veto power)
- Colton v. Branstad, 372 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1985) (items subject to item veto)
- Homan v. Branstad, 864 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 2015) (mootness analysis re: appropriations and impoundment)
- AFSCME/Iowa Council 61 v. State, 484 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa 1992) (distinguishing binding obligations of the state from the present case)