Governor Napolitano overstepped her authority in vetoing a number of budget cuts, a lawyer for the legislative leadership told the Arizona Supreme Court on Sept. 9.

The five justices heard oral arguments in the lawsuit from John Bouma, who represented four majority leaders in the Legislature, and Scott Bales, who defended Ms. Napolitano’s use of the veto. Following the arguments, the justices gave no indication of when they might rule on the case.

The Democratic governor in June vetoed 35 provisions in four budget bills, including $75 million earmarked to settle a lawsuit against the state, which had the effect of freeing that money for a variety of purposes ranging from health care to arts programs.

Four Republican leaders in the Legislature – Senate President Ken Bennett, Dist. 1; Senate Majority Leader Tim Bee, Dist. 30; House Speaker Jake Flake, Dist. 5; and House Majority Leader Eddie Farnsworth, Dist. 22 – filed suit challenging 11 of the vetoes. They contend that Ms. Napolitano had no authority to veto provisions that weren’t appropriations, and that doing so usurped the Legislature’s power to appropriate.

The court gave each side 25 minutes to argue their respective cases, but as is typical in oral arguments, the justices frequently interrupted the attorneys’ comments to ask questions.

Within seconds of Mr. Bouma beginning his remarks, the justices began asking him questions about whether the lawmakers have standing to bring a lawsuit.

Mr. Bouma replied that the four plaintiffs do have standing because they are Arizona taxpayers, leaders elected by the members of the Legislature and, as members of the Legislature themselves, are authorized to draw up budgets. Justice Rebecca White Berch asked Mr. Bouma whether the members of the Legislature had taken a vote on whether to file a lawsuit against the governor, to which Mr. Bouma replied “No.”

’No Rule Book In Writing Budget.’ Justices Told

Justice Berch went on to ask whether the Legislature made it easier for the governor to use the veto by listing cuts to agencies as line items, rather than simply reducing the appropriations. Mr. Bouma said the court should ignore the way the budget was written because that would “put form over substance.” Instead, the court should consider the Legislature’s clear intention in cutting spending.

“There’s no rule book on how you’re supposed to write a budget,” Mr. Bouma said.

Several of the five justices asked Mr. Bales questions about whether Ms. Napolitano had the authority to veto provisions that cut or eliminated spending – effectively increasing spending – when the line-item veto traditionally is a means of cutting “profligate spending,” as Chief Justice Charles E. Jones described it.

Mr. Bales replied that the governor could veto spending cuts because they were included in a budget bill, although he agreed that the Legislature could have passed separate legislation to eliminate certain programs, such as emergency adult dental care.

In his response to the lawsuit, Mr. Bales had argued that the four legislative leaders had lacked standing to bring suit because they hadn’t been specifically authorized by the Legislature to file the suit. He also said the suit should be thrown out because the legislative leaders made no attempt to override the governor’s veto and didn’t seek legal action until after the fiscal 2004 had begun on July 1, when funds already had been released to state agencies. —