Danny Homan, William A. Dotzler, Jr., Bruce Hunter, David Jacoby, Kirsten Running-Marquardt, and Daryl Beall v. Terry E. Branstad, Governor of the State of Iowa
812 N.W.2d 623
Iowa2012Background
- Supreme Court of Iowa addresses Governor Branstad's item vetoes on SF 517, an education/economic development appropriations bill.
- Governor vetoed section 15(3)(c) prohibiting reduction of field offices and section 15(5) defining 'field office' to require a staff person.
- Governor also item vetoed section 20 restricting IWD use of funds for the National Career Readiness Certificate Program.
- Legislature appropriated $8.66 million for IWD field offices (15(3)(b)); 15(5) sets staffing definition tied to that appropriation.
- District court split: 15(3)(c) and 15(5) treated as inseverable from the appropriation; section 20 treated as a rider.
- Court remands with a remedy: invalidate certain divisions of SF 517 and declare remaining provisions enacted; need not decide 15(3)(c)'s standalone validity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15(3)(c) is a separable item veto or a condition on the appropriation | Homan argues 15(3)(c) is a separate item subject to veto | Branstad argues 15(3)(c) is a condition on the appropriation | Unnecessary to decide; SF 517 fails overall |
| Whether 15(5) could be vetoed without vetoing 15(3) | Homan argues 15(5) is a separate item | Branstad argues inseparable from 15(3)(b) | Unconstitutional veto of 15(5) without 15(3) |
| Whether 20 is a valid rider veto independently | Homan argues 20 is a stand-alone rider | Branstad argues 20 is an invalid attempt to veto unrelated provisions | Unconstitutional veto of section 20 without vetoing related appropriations |
| Remedy for invalid vetoes and effect on SF 517 | Legislature seeks law as if vetoes voided | Remedy should invalidate entire bill if veto invalid | Invalid vetoes require declaring sections 15(5) and 20 void; other sections become law or not per constitutional process |
| Standard of review for item veto constitutionality | Question of law reviewed de novo | Same; must determine constitutional scope of veto power | Review de novo; constitutional analysis governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2004) (establishes framework for item veto scope and separability)
- Junkins v. Branstad, 448 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 1989) (limits on governor's power and separation of powers)
- Colton v. Branstad, 372 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1985) (defines inseparability of provisions linked to appropriations)
- Welden v. Ray, 229 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa 1975) (veto cannot strike qualification that limits appropriation without vetoing funds)
- Rush v. Ray, 362 N.W.2d 479 (Iowa 1985) (appropriation limits may be binding even when vetoed; merits of rider versus condition)
- Turner v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 186 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa 1971) (illustrates when language is a condition on appropriation and must be vetoed with appropriation)