Pa. high court says veto misused
Gov. Rendell wrongly rejected '05-06 budget language, justices said, reversing a lower court.
HARRISBURG - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Gov. Rendell misused his line-item veto authority three years ago in a dispute over abortion-related counseling and closing state police barracks.
The state's high court unanimously said "language-only" vetoes are not permitted, meaning Rendell cannot strike out language in a budget bill without also canceling the authorized money.
The 36-page decision reversed a 2006 Commonwealth Court ruling that the governor had used the veto appropriately regarding the 2005-06 budget.
Rendell had overruled restrictions on family-planning counseling as well as a requirement that the state police conduct hearings and tell the public before they close any barracks. The high court also overturned a line-item veto regarding the purchase of steel for highway construction.
A fourth challenged veto, related to a pilot program to widen highway pavement markings, was upheld.
The separation-of-powers lawsuit was filed by Rep. John Perzel, a Philadelphia Republican who was speaker of the House at the time, and former Sen. Robert Jubelirer of Blair County, the Senate's ranking Republican at the time.
"It's saying that the General Assembly can specify or limit what money can be spent on. So we're glad the court agreed with our interpretation," House Republican spokesman Steve Miskin said.
Senate Republican lawyer Steve MacNett said that the 2005-06 money was presumably all spent, but that the ruling would inform future budget negotiations.
"A budget is always a compromise, a package of not only allocations of money but a statement of policy priorities regarding expenditures of those moneys," MacNett said. "It is important that the monies be spent for the purposes for which the General Assembly approved them."
Rendell spokesman Chuck Ardo said that it was "a complex case" and that the administration wanted to review the ruling before making additional comment.
The administration had argued that preventing the governor from vetoing certain language would lead the General Assembly to "once again 'load up' large appropriations with objectionable conditions and put the governor to [a] Hobbesian choice," according to the opinion by Chief Justice Ronald Castille.
Read the court opinion at http://go.philly.com/lineitem
EndText