731 S.E.2d 722
S.C.2011Background
- Petitioner Darrick Jackson, Mayor of Timmonsville, seeks a declaratory judgment that Governor Sanford’s veto (Veto 52) of General Funds to the State Budget and Control Board was unconstitutional.
- The Board used budget provisos to transfer approximately $13.3 million from the Rural Infrastructure Bank Trust Fund to cover Board expenditures that had been funded by the General Fund, after the veto.
- The annual appropriations act for 2010-2011 listed General Fund amounts separately in a column but did not separate other funding sources in distinct columns.
- Governor argued Veto 52 nullified the General Fund portion of the Board’s appropriation, while leaving the rest intact, effectively reducing an item rather than vetoing it in its entirety.
- Court ultimately holds that the veto of only the General Fund portion was an unconstitutional modification of an item, and declares Veto 52 unconstitutional; result: General Fund appropriation to the Board stands as law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veto 52 nullifies or merely modifies an item in the appropriation | Jackson contends veto modified an item, not nullified it | Sanford argues veto constitutes a valid partial veto of an item | Unconstitutional modification; veto invalidated |
| Definition of an 'item' for veto purposes | Item includes funds and their objects/purposes | Item can be restricted by vetoing a source | Item includes both amount and purpose; veto of source is improper |
| Whether column/line formatting determines an 'item' | Formatting is irrelevant to item definition | ||
| Whether historical practice justifies partial funding vetoes | Practice supports partial vetoes | Not persuasive; constitutional authority prohibits partial vetoes that alter purpose | |
| Effect of the veto on separation of powers and proviso transfers | Transfers via provisos potentially unconstitutional | Not reached; veto invalidated first |
Key Cases Cited
- Drummond v. Beasley, 331 S.C. 559 (1998) (veto must not modify legislation; negative power to nullify)
- Florida House of Representatives v. Martinez, 555 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1990) ( Governor cannot veto partial funding from a single purpose)
- Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 704 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1985) (fund source part of an item; veto cannot remove funding source)
- State ex rel. Walker v. Derham, 61 S.C. 258 (1901) (appropriation constitutes a specific sum for a purpose)
- Henry v. Edwards, 346 So.2d 153 (La. 1977) (item definition and purpose matter for veto power)