« Scott's LG dilemma | Main | Everything you know about Florida politics is wrong, right? »

June 07, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Martha Harbin

I'm intrigued by the portion of the ruling stating the specific proviso is that same as a line item or a specific appropriation. Does this mean the governor may veto a line of proviso without vetoing the entire appropriation?


Well that remains a great ongoing legal question. In the past the courts have ruled that the governor cannot use his veto pen to eliminate proviso _ unless he wipes out the accompanying appropriation tied to it. The last 2 governors have challenged that notion and vetoed tuition hikes that were authorized in proviso. In this case, however, one of the arguments revolved around 216.313 which states that an agency cannot execute a contract unless there's a specific appropriation tied to it. The appeals court ruled this has a very broad definition and called it a "term of art." In essence, Judge Ray said the appropriation tied to the contract can be very specific or very broad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo


Blog powered by Typepad