Veto-proof state legislatures and opposing party governors in the 2018 elections

* Ballotpedia's Election Analysis in 2018
* Wave elections
* FEDERAL
* Post-election analysis
* Control of the U.S. House
* Control of the U.S. Senate
* Was 2018 a wave election?
* Incumbent win rates by state
* Battleground elections
* U.S. Senate
* U.S. House
* U.S. House and Senate competitiveness
* Annual Congressional Competitiveness Report, 2018
* U.S. House races without major party competition
* Incumbents defeated in 2018 congressional elections
* Events and media coverage
* Timeline of events in 2018 congressional elections
* Media coverage of 2018 congressional elections
* Split-ticket districts in the 2016 presidential and U.S. House elections
* Polls and prediction markets
* Battleground election polls, 2018
* PredictIt markets in the 2018 elections
* STATE
* Post-election analysis
* State government trifectas
* Partisan balance of state legislative chambers
* Partisan balance of governors
* Was 2018 a wave election?
* Incumbent win rates by state
* Races decided by fewer than 100 votes
* State legislative margins of victory
* Party control
* Gubernatorial and legislative party control of state government
* State government trifectas
* Vulnerable state government trifectas
* Veto-proof state legislatures
* State election competitiveness
* State Executive Competitiveness Report
* State Legislative Competitiveness Report
* State-level elections
* State executive official elections
* State legislative elections
* State judicial elections
* 2018 ballot measures
* State legislative battleground chambers, 2018
* Polls and prediction markets
* Battleground election polls, 2018
* PredictIt markets in the 2018 elections
* 2018 ballot measure polls
* LOCAL
* United States municipal elections, 2018
* School board elections, 2018
* 2018 election analysis: Incumbents defeated in state legislative elections
* 2018 PRIMARIES
* Battleground primaries
* Ballotpedia's Top 10 primaries
* Democratic Party battlegrounds
* Republican Party battlegrounds
* Intra-party conflict
* Democratic Party conflict
* Republican Party conflict
* Primary election competitiveness
* Primary election turnout
* Top 10 Closest Primaries: January to June 2018

2018 State Election Analysis

* * *

All state elections
Statewide ballot measures • State government trifectas • Trifecta vulnerability • Veto-proof state legislatures • Noteworthy third party candidates • Officials seeking other offices • Incumbent win rates

* * *

State legislative elections
Battleground chambers • Partisan balance of chambers • Number of state legislators by party • Supermajorities • Annual State Legislative Competitiveness Report • Open seats • Incumbents defeated • Races decided by fewer than 100 votes • State legislative seats flipped • State legislative margins of victory

* * *

State executive elections
State government triplexes • Partisan balance of governors • Annual State Executive Competitiveness Report • Impact of term limits on state executive elections in 2018 • States with gubernatorial and U.S. Senate elections • Prediction markets • Battleground polls

* * *

State judicial elections

* * *

Federal election analysis
Local election analysis
All election results

2020 →

In the 2018 elections, Republicans lost their legislative supermajority in North Carolina, increasing the policymaking capacity of Gov. Roy Cooper (D). Heading into the 2018 elections, there were three states with a governor of one party and a veto-proof state legislature of the opposing party: Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. Ballotpedia identified seven states that could have switched to having a veto-proof legislature and an opposing party governor as a result of the 2018 elections.

State governors may veto bills advanced by the state legislature. With sufficient support—between one-half and two-thirds of sitting legislators, depending on the state—state legislatures may overturn a gubernatorial veto. When one party controls enough seats to overturn a veto without any support from the other party, a legislature can be said to hold a veto-proof majority. The presence of a veto-proof majority strengthens the legislature's hand when it comes to passing bills of which the governor disapproves and can lead to conflict when opposing parties control the legislature and governor's mansion.

On this page, you will find:

* States with veto-proof legislatures and opposing governors at the time of the 2018 election
* Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina

* States that could have gained a veto-proof legislature and an opposing governor in 2018
* Alaska, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin

* Background on veto override procedures used in the 50 states

* Four case studies of conflict arising from veto-proof state legislature and opposing party governor

## Contents

* 1 States with a veto-proof legislature and opposing party governor in 2018
* 1.1 Maryland
* 1.1.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 1.1.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 1.2 Massachusetts
* 1.2.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 1.2.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 1.3 North Carolina
* 1.3.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 1.3.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 2 States with a potential supermajority conflict
* 2.1 Alaska
* 2.1.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 2.1.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 2.2 Illinois
* 2.2.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 2.2.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 2.3 Montana
* 2.3.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 2.3.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 2.4 Nevada
* 2.4.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 2.4.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 2.5 Ohio
* 2.5.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 2.5.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 2.6 Vermont
* 2.6.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 2.6.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 2.7 Wisconsin
* 2.7.1 Partisan lean in 2018
* 2.7.2 Outcome of the 2018 elections
* 3 Background
* 3.1 Veto overrides
* 4 Case studies
* 4.1 Case study: North Carolina
* 4.2 Case study: Illinois
* 4.3 Case study: Massachusetts
* 4.4 Case study: Maryland
* 5 See also
* 6 Footnotes

## States with a veto-proof legislature and opposing party governor in 2018[edit]

### Maryland[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Maryland was Larry Hogan (R). In Maryland, three-fifths of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Democratic Party held more than three-fifths of the seats in both chambers of the legislature, with a 91-50 majority in the Maryland House of Delegates and a 33-14 majority in the Maryland State Senate.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the 2018 elections, Larry Hogan (R) was re-elected as governor and Democrats gained seven seats in the House of Delegates and maintained their supermajority in the state Senate. As a result, Maryland remained a state where one party held a veto-proof majority and the other party held the governorship. Democrats would have needed to lose at least six seats in the state House or four seats in the state Senate to lose their supermajority.

### Massachusetts[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Massachusetts was Charlie Baker (R). In Massachusetts, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Democratic Party held more than two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of the legislature, with a 117-34 majority in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and a 31-7 majority in the Massachusetts State Senate.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the 2018 elections, Charlie Baker (R) was re-elected as governor. Democrats gained two seats in the state House and neither gained nor lost seats in the state Senate. As a result, Massachusetts remained a state where one party held the governorship and the other party held a veto-proof majority in the state legislature. Democrats would have needed to lose at least 10 seats in the state House or at least four seats in the state Senate in order to lose their supermajority.

### North Carolina[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of North Carolina was Roy Cooper (D). In North Carolina, three-fifths of members present in the state legislature are required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Republican Party held more than three-fifths of the seats in both chambers of the legislature, with a 75-45 majority in the North Carolina House of Representatives and a 34-15 majority in the North Carolina State Senate.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

No election for governor was held in 2018, meaning that Roy Cooper (D) retained the position. Republicans lost their supermajority by falling below the three-fifths threshold in the state House. Republicans lost 10 seats in the state House and lost five seats in the state Senate. As a result, North Carolina lost its status as a state where one party controls veto-proof majorities in both houses of the state legislature and the other party controlled the governorship. Republicans needed to lose at least three seats in the state House or at least four seats in the state Senate to lose their supermajority.

## States with a potential supermajority conflict[edit]

Ballotpedia considered a state to have a potential supermajority if the number of seats across both chambers of the legislature that would need to be picked up by the majority party in order to gain a supermajority was less than or equal to 10 percent of the total seats in the legislature. The following states all had either a supermajority or a potential supermajority at the time of the 2018 elections. In addition, all but Montana had a governor of the opposing party and election racetrackers rated the state's 2018 gubernatorial race as likely to be won by the legislative minority's party. In Montana, the governor was of the opposing party and no gubernatorial election was being held in 2018.[2]

### Alaska[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Alaska was Bill Walker (I). In Alaska, veto overrides are conducted in a joint session of both chambers of the state legislature; two-thirds of the joint session is required to overturn a gubernatorial veto. The Republican Party held a 35-23 majority across the two chambers, falling short of the two-thirds requirement.[1]

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the gubernatorial election, Mike Dunleavy (R) was elected governor to succeed Bill Walker (I), giving the Republican Party control of the governorship. Republicans did not win a supermajority, gaining two seats in the state House and losing one seat in the state Senate for a net gain of one seat across both chambers. Republicans needed to gain at least five seats to gain a supermajority. Because Republicans won control of both the governorship and a majority in the state legislature, no supermajority conflict formed in Alaska as a result of the 2018 elections.

### Illinois[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Illinois was Bruce Rauner (R). In Illinois, three-fifths of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Democratic Party held more than three-fifths of the seats in the Illinois State Senate with its 37-22 majority, but its 66-51 majority in the Illinois House of Representatives fell short of this threshold, meaning that the Democratic Party did not have the ability to override gubernatorial vetoes without the support of some House Republicans.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the 2018 elections, J.B. Pritzker (D) was elected governor to succeed Bruce Rauner (R), handing Democrats the governorship. Democrats also gained a veto-proof majority in the state legislature by gaining five seats in the state House while maintaining their supermajority in the state Senate by gaining two seats. Democrats needed to win at least five seats in the state House and to not lose any seats in the state Senate in order to gain a supermajority. Because the same party won control of both the governorship and a veto-proof majority in the state legislature, a supermajority conflict was not created by the 2018 elections in Illinois.

### Montana[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Montana was Steve Bullock (D). In Montana, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Republican Party controlled majorities in both chambers of the legislature, it fell short of the two-thirds requirement with its 59-41 majority in the Montana House of Representatives and its 32-18 majority in the Montana State Senate.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

No election for governor was held in Montana in 2018, meaning that Steve Bullock (D) retained the seat. Republicans gained no more than two seats in the state House and lost two seats in the state Senate. In order to gain a supermajority, Republicans needed to gain at least eight seats in the state House and at least two seats in the state Senate. Because Republicans did not gain a supermajority, no supermajority conflict was created in Montana as a result of the 2018 elections.

### Nevada[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Nevada was Brian Sandoval (R). In Nevada, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Democratic Party controlled majorities in both chambers of the legislature, it fell short of the two-thirds requirement with its 27-14 majority in the Nevada State Assembly and its 10-8 majority in the Nevada State Senate.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the 2018 elections, Steve Sisolak (D) was elected to succeed Brian Sandoval (R), giving Democrats control of the governorship. Democrats did not win a supermajority, gaining two seats in the state Assembly and three seats in the state Senate. Democrats needed to gain at least one seat in the state Assembly and at least four seats in the state Senate in order to win a supermajority. Because Democrats gained control of the governorship as well as a majority in the state legislature, no supermajority conflict occurred in Nevada as a result of the 2018 elections.

### Ohio[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Ohio was John Kasich (R). In Ohio, three-fifths of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Republican Party held more than three-fifths of the seats in both chambers of the legislature, with a 65-33 majority in the Ohio House of Representatives and a 24-9 majority in the Ohio State Senate.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the 2018 elections, Mike DeWine (R) was elected to succeed John Kasich (R), keeping the seat in Republican hands. Republicans maintained their supermajority, losing five seats in the state House and gaining one seat in the state Senate. Republicans needed to lose at least five seats in the state House or at least four seats in the state Senate in order to lose their supermajority. Because the Republican Party maintained control of both the governorship and its supermajority in the state legislature, no supermajority conflict occurred in Ohio as a result of the 2018 elections.

### Vermont[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Vermont was Phil Scott (R). In Vermont, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. The Democratic Party held more than two-thirds of the seats in the Vermont State Senate with its 21-7 majority but fell short of this threshold with its 83-53 majority in the Vermont House of Representatives, meaning that the Democratic Party did not have the ability to override a gubernatorial veto without the support of some House Republicans.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the 2018 elections, Phil Scott (R) was re-elected as governor, keeping the seat in Republican hands. The Democratic Party fell short of gaining a legislative supermajority, gaining 15 seats in the state House and gaining one seat in the state Senate. Democrats needed to gain at least 17 seats in the state House while losing no seats in the state Senate in order to win a veto-proof majority. Because Democrats fell short of gaining a two-thirds majority in the state House, a supermajority conflict did not occur in Vermont as a result of the 2018 elections.

### Wisconsin[edit]

#### Partisan lean in 2018[edit]

Heading into the 2018 elections, the governor of Wisconsin was Scott Walker (R). In Wisconsin, two-thirds of the state legislature is required to override a gubernatorial veto. Although the Republican Party controlled majorities in both chambers of the state Legislature, it fell short of the two-thirds threshold in both chambers with its 64-35 majority in the Wisconsin State Assembly and its 18-15 majority in the Wisconsin State Senate.[1]

|

#### Outcome of the 2018 elections[edit]

In the 2018 elections, Tony Evers (D) was elected to succeed Scott Walker (R), handing control of the seat to Democrats. Republicans did not gain a veto-proof majority in the state legislature, potentially losing one seat in the state Assembly and potentially gaining one seat in the state Senate. Republicans needed to win at least two seats in the state Assembly and at least four seats in the state Senate in order to win a supermajority. Because Republicans did not gain a veto-proof majority in the state legislature, a supermajority conflict did not occur in Wisconsin as a result of the 2018 elections.

## Background[edit]

### Veto overrides[edit]

All 50 states give their legislatures the ability to override gubernatorial vetoes. The authority for the override power is always included in a state's constitution, which also specifies how many legislators are needed to override a veto.

* 36 states require a two-thirds vote from both chambers of the legislature.
* Seven states require a three-fifths vote from both chambers of the legislature.[3]
* Six states require a majority vote from both chambers of the legislature.
* Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its legislative chambers.

Ballotpedia has identified six states with rules that change the veto override threshold depending on the type of bill being considered: Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Bills that are subject to special rules are appropriations bills, tax bills, and emergency bills.

Depending on the state, the vote threshold required for a veto override applies to either all members elected to a chamber or to all members present in the chamber. For example, Alabama requires a majority of all elected members to override a veto, so 53 of 105 votes are needed in the state House and 18 votes of 35 votes are needed in the state Senate. Idaho, on the other hand, requires two-thirds of all members present. So, if only 30 of the state Senate's 35 members are present, the threshold to override a veto in that chamber would be 20 votes rather than the 24 that would be required if all elected members were present.

Click [show] to see a state-by-state breakdown of the rules for veto overrides.

Veto overrides in state legislatures

State  | Votes required  | Special rules  | Constitutional authority
Alabama | Majority Elected | N/A | Article V, Section 125
Alaska | 2/3 Elected [4] | A 3/4 vote is required to overturn vetoes of appropriation or revenue bills. | Article II, Section 16
Arizona | 2/3 Elected | A 3/4 vote is required to overturn vetoes of emergency bills. | Article 5, Section 7
Arkansas | Majority Elected | N/A | Article 6, Section 15
California | 2/3 Elected | The Legislature has 60 days to override a veto.[5] | Article IV, Section 10
Colorado | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article IV, Section 11
Connecticut | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article IV, Section 15
Delaware | 3/5 Elected | N/A | Article III, Section 18
Florida | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article III, Section 8
Georgia | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article III, Section 5, Paragraph XIII and Article V, Section 2, Paragraph IV
Hawaii | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article III, Section 17
Idaho | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article IV, Section 10
Illinois | 3/5 Elected | A majority vote is required to restore provisions in appropriation bills that the governor reduces through line item vetoes. | Article IV, Section 9
Indiana | Majority Elected | N/A | Article 5, Section 14
Iowa | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Legislative Department, Section 16
Kansas | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article 2, Section 14
Kentucky | Majority Elected | N/A | The Executive Department, Section 88
Louisiana | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article III, Section 18
Maine | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article IV, Part Third, Section 2
Maryland | 3/5 Elected | N/A | Article II, Section 17
Massachusetts | 2/3 Present | N/A | Chapter 1, Article II
Michigan | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article IV, Section 33
Minnesota | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article IV, Section 23
Mississippi | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article IV, Section 72
Missouri | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article III, Section 32
Montana | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article VI, Section 10
Nebraska | 3/5 Elected | N/A | Article IV, Section 15
Nevada | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article 4, Section 35
New Hampshire | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Executive Power, Article 44
New Jersey | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article V, Section 1
New Mexico | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article IV, Section 22
New York | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article IV, Section 7
North Carolina | 3/5 Present | N/A | Article II, Section 22
North Dakota | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article V, Section 9
Ohio | 3/5 Elected | A 2/3 vote is required to overturn vetoes of emergency bills. | Article II, Section 16
Oklahoma | 2/3 Elected | A 3/4 vote is required to overturn vetoes of emergency bills. | Article VI, Section 11
Oregon | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article V, Section 15b
Pennsylvania | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article IV, Section 15
Rhode Island | 3/5 Elected | N/A | Article IX, Section 14
South Carolina | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article IV, Section 21
South Dakota | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article IV, Section 4
Tennessee | Majority Elected | N/A | Article III, Section 18
Texas | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article 4, Section 14
Utah | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article VII, Section 8
Vermont | 2/3 Present | N/A | Legislative Department, Section 11
Virginia | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article V, Section 6
Washington | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article III, Section 12
West Virginia | Majority Elected | A 2/3 vote is required to overturn vetoes of appropriation bills. | Article VII, Section 14
Wisconsin | 2/3 Present | N/A | Article V, Section 10
Wyoming | 2/3 Elected | N/A | Article 4, Section 8

## Case studies[edit]

This section summarizes governing conflicts took place in year leading up to the 2018 elections as the result of an arrangement featuring a veto-proof legislative majority with an opposing party governor.

### Case study: North Carolina[edit]

See also: Conflicts between Gov. Roy Cooper and the General Assembly of North Carolina

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D)

In the 2016 elections, Roy Cooper (D) was elected governor of North Carolina while the Republican Party held a supermajority in the state Legislature. In 2017, ten separate vetoes issued by Gov. Cooper were overriden by the state Legislature.[6] Among the bills that were passed over the governor's veto were House Bill 100, which made superior and district court elections partisan, Senate Bill 257, which decreased the state's income tax rates and limited the ability of the governor to use state funds to sue the legislature, and House Bill 770, which changed the structure of the six-member North Carolina Medical Board so that the governor has the power to appoint only four members rather than all six.

Heading into the 2018 elections, Cooper and the Democratic Party of North Carolina identified breaking the Republican Party supermajority as a priority: "We need to pull together like never before to make sure we get this legislature back...The bottom line here is this crowd in power is working as hard as they can to take this state backward, and they're working fast because they know we’re coming for them."[7]

Legislative leaders such as House Speaker Tim Moore (R) have argued that the supermajority allows them to enact policy priorities without the threat of executive interference. After the legislature successfully overrode the governor's veto of the state budget on June 28, 2017, Moore argued that "The governor chose partisanship over the people of North Carolina when he rejected middle class tax cuts and a fourth consecutive teacher pay raise but the General Assembly has delivered these priorities to North Carolinians without his support."[8]

### Case study: Illinois[edit]

See also: State budget conflicts, 2017

On July 6, 2017, the Democratic-controlled Illinois General Assembly overrode Gov. Bruce Rauner’s (R) vetoes of a $36 billion spending plan and a $5 billion tax increase. The override of Rauner’s vetoes marked the end of a 2-year period in which Illinois did not have a budget in place. The state last passed a budget in June 2014, when Pat Quinn (D) served as governor. Rauner defeated Quinn in the 2014 gubernatorial election. Rauner and the General Assembly could not agree on a spending plan in 2015 or 2016, meaning that the state relied on court-ordered spending and stopgap spending measures to fund most services.

The 2017 legislative session ran from January 11 to May 31. Much of the session was focused on budget negotiations between Rauner and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan (D). They disagreed on several issues including freezing local property tax rates, adding additional restrictions to compensation programs for injured workers, and increasing the state income tax. After failing to reach an agreement, Rauner called the General Assembly into special session from June 21 to June 30, the last day of the 2017 fiscal year. A budget agreement was not reached before June 30, meaning Illinois entered the 2018 fiscal year without a budget.

On July 2, the state House passed a $36 billion spending plan and a $5 billion tax increase. The tax plan raised the personal income tax from 3.75 to 4.95 percent and increased the corporate income tax from 5.25 percent to 7 percent. The budget passed the House by a 72-45 vote. On July 4, the state Senate passed the budget on a 36-18 vote. Shortly after the state Senate passed the budget, it was vetoed by Rauner. The bill was sent back to the Senate the same day and Rauner’s veto was overridden by a 36-19 margin. On July 6, the House overrode the veto by a 71-42 margin. Prior to passing the budget, Illinois faced cuts to state services, including shutdowns of state transportation projects and the state lottery, and a potential downgrade of the credit rating on its bonds to junk status.

The conflict between Rauner and the General Assembly continued after the budget was passed. $8.2 billion in state aid for public schools was included in the budget agreement. However, language was also included that said $6.76 billion of the aid had to be dispersed through a funding formula that calculates state aid for school districts based on the cost of strategies that supporters say are proven to improve student performance. The funding for districts can be increased by elements such as income, property wealth, and English-learning needs.[9][10][11] On May 31, the General Assembly passed SB 1, which contained the necessary funding formula. Gov. Rauner indicated that he would veto the bill because he believed it would benefit Chicago at the expense of other areas of the state.[12]

Rauner issued an amendatory veto on August 1, rewriting SB 1 to remove a $250 million block grant to Chicago Public Schools and changing how the funding formula weights Chicago schools' pension funds.[13] The Illinois Senate met on August 13 and overrode the veto by a 38-19 vote, with all Democrats and Republican Sam McCann voting to override.[14] The Illinois House was scheduled to vote on the override on August 23, but Speaker Madigan cancelled the vote on August 22. He said that progress had been made in negotiations with Rauner and Republicans.[15][16][17]

On August 24, the four leaders in the General Assembly— Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton (D), Senate Minority Leader Bill Brady (R), and House Minority Leader Jim Durkin (R)— announced that they had reached a compromise agreement on SB 1. According to Politico, the agreement kept the funding formula from SB 1 and included $75 million in subsidies for private school education.[18]

On August 28, the Illinois House rejected the agreement in a 46-61 vote.[19] The chamber next voted on an override of SB 1. After the override vote received just 63 of the 71 votes it needed to pass, the chamber took up the compromise bill again and passed it 73-34.[20] On August 29, the Illinois Senate passed the compromise bill by a 38-13 vote. Gov. Rauner said he would sign the bill.[21]

Following the 2016 elections, Illinois was one of 19 states under divided government. Democrats had a 67-51 majority in the House and a 37-22 majority in the Senate. Three fifths of members in both chambers must vote to override a veto, which is 71 of the 118 members in the Illinois House of Representatives and 36 of the 59 members in the Illinois State Senate.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D)

### Case study: Massachusetts[edit]

In the 2014 elections, Charlie Baker (R) was elected governor of Massachusetts while the Democratic Party held a supermajority in the state Legislature. The Democratic supermajority has allowed the state Legislature to overturn Baker's vetoes, giving the legislative branch an upper hand in policy disputes.

Among the bills passed by the legislature, vetoed by Baker, and subsequently enacted over Baker's veto was H.4491, which required that health insurance companies cover the cost of long-term antibiotic treatments for Lyme disease patients in cases where the treatment is deemed medically necessary. Baker's July 28, 2016, veto of the bill was overturned three days later.[22][23] H.58, which increased the pay rates for the state's executive officers (including the governor), leadership figures in the state legislature, and certain judicial officers, was passed over Baker's veto on February 2, 2017.[24][25] The state's fiscal year 2018 budget was the subject of a series of line-item vetoes by Baker which eliminated nearly $320 million of funding. The state House voted to overturn each of Baker's vetoes, but the state Senate voted against overturning several vetoes, including a veto of $209 million in appropriations to MassHealth.[26][27]

The Democratic supermajority in the Massachusetts state legislature was targeted by the Republican State Leadership Committee during the 2016 election cycle. In July 2015, the committee announced that Massachusetts would be one of the states it placed particular emphasis on in its 2016 campaign efforts.

### Case study: Maryland[edit]

In the 2014 elections, Larry Hogan (R) was elected governor of Maryland while the Democratic Party held a supermajority in the state Legislature. Hogan and the legislature have clashed on numerous occasions since he took office, and the Democratic supermajority has allowed the legislature to overturn several of Hogan's vetoes.

Among the vetoes overturned by the legislature were:

* House Bill 1013, which required the state Department of Transportation to score its proposed projects using factors including safety and cost-effectiveness. Its proponents argued that it would make the prioritization process for public works more transparent, while opponents argued that it would limit local control and would favor more populous counties. The state legislature successfully overturned Hogan's veto.[28][29]

* HB 0001, which required employers with more than 15 employees to provide their employees with earned sick leave at their standard wage and required all other employers to provide their employees with unpaid sick leave.[30][31]

* HB1783, which created a panel filled by appointment of the governor and legislative leadership which would prioritize the construction and renovation of schools rather than the existing Board of Public Works—comprised of the governor, treasurer, and comptroller. Hogan's veto, which was supported by Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), was overturned by the legislature.[32][33]

Republicans were seeking to break the Democratic veto-proof majority in the 2018 legislative elections. A May 2017 report in The Washington Post indicated that Senate Republicans had targeted five Democratic incumbents which they had identified as vulnerable with the stated goal of breaking the veto-proof majority.[34] In a January 2018 interview, GOPAC Chairman David Avella identified breaking the Democratic veto-proof majority, which has been in place since 1922, as an achievable goal: "Given the dynamics in the state now and the fact that Republicans have majorities in nearly two-thirds of state legislatures, we can start playing offense in areas where we haven't played before."[35]

## See also[edit]

* State government trifectas
* Supermajority
* Veto overrides in state legislatures
* Conflicts between Gov. Roy Cooper and the General Assembly of North Carolina
* Gubernatorial elections, 2018
* State legislative elections, 2018

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 This analysis did not take vacant seats or seats held by a third party or independent legislator into account. It also did not account for situations where members of one party caucus with the other party.
2. ↑ This calculation took into account ratings from the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections with Nathan Gonzales, and Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. In order for a state to be included in this list, none of the above outlets could have rated it as a Toss-up or in favor of the legislative majority. In addition, at least two out of the three must have rated the race as Likely or Safe for the legislative minority.
3. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `NE`
4. ↑ Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its two legislative chambers, which is 40 of 60 legislators.
5. ↑ California State Capitol Museum, "Life Cycle of a Bill," accessed July 21, 2017
6. ↑ North Carolina Legislative Library, "North Carolina Veto History and Statistics, 1997-2018," accessed January 9, 2018
7. ↑ Citizen Times, "Cooper, fired up Dems set sights on busting GOP super-majority," October 8, 2017
8. ↑ Fox 8, "Lawmakers override Gov. Cooper’s budget veto," January 9, 2018
9. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `EDU`
10. ↑ NPR Illinois, "Education Desk: Evidence-Based School Funding Model Explained," September 26, 2016
11. ↑ WTTW, "Education Funding in Illinois: How the Evidence-Based Model Works," September 21, 2016
12. ↑ U.S. News and World Report, "Rauner Aide: Democrats' School Funding Plan a CPS 'Bailout'," May 17, 2017
13. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner vetoes education funding plan, Emanuel accuses him of 'fuzzy math'," August 1, 2017
14. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Senate overrides Rauner school funding veto, but House hurdle remains," August 13, 2017
15. ↑ The Chicago Sun-Times, "Speaker Madigan calls legislators to work — on Governor’s Day," August 9, 2017
16. ↑ wglt.org, "Illinois House To Vote Next Week On School Funding Override," August 16, 2017
17. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Madigan calls off Wednesday session in Springfield; no override vote of Rauner for now," August 23, 2017
18. ↑ Politico, "SCHOOL funding WINNERS and LOSERS — RAUNER staffing TURMOIL — Saving ABE in CHICAGO," August 25, 2017
19. ↑ capitolfax.com, "Education funding reform bill gets just 46 votes," August 28, 2017
20. ↑ capitolfax.com, "On second try, education funding reform passes with 73 votes," August 28, 2017
21. ↑ capitolfax.com, "React rolls in to passage of education funding reform," August 29, 2017
22. ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Bill H.4491," accessed July 20, 2018
23. ↑ Wicked Local Scituate, "Mass. Legislature overrides Gov. Baker’s veto of Lyme disease coverage," August 2, 2016
24. ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Bill H.58," accessed July 20, 2018
25. ↑ Boston.com, "Lawmakers vote to override Charlie Baker’s veto of pay raises," February 2, 2017
26. ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "FY 2018 Final Budget," accessed July 20, 2018
27. ↑ Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, "The State Budget for FY 2018 Including Veto Overrides," December 6, 2017
28. ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB1013," accessed July 20, 2018
29. ↑ WTOP, "Md. House of Delegates overrides 2 Hogan vetoes," April 7, 2016
30. ↑ The Washington Post, "Maryland flexes progressive Democratic muscles to override two Hogan vetoes," January 12, 2018
31. ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB0001," accessed July 20, 2018
32. ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB1783," accessed July 20, 2018
33. ↑ WBAL TV 11, "General Assembly overrides Hogan's veto of school construction overhaul bill," April 5, 2018
34. ↑ The Washington Post, "How Md. Republicans plan to break the state Senate’s supermajority in 2018," May 7, 2017
35. ↑ The Washington Post, "Republican outside groups take a rare interest in deep-blue Maryland," January 12, 2018

State legislatures

Legislatures

Alabama (H, S) · Alaska (H, S) · Arizona (H, S) · Arkansas (H, S) · California (A, S) · Colorado (H, S) · Connecticut (H, S) · Delaware (H, S) · Florida (H, S) · Georgia (H, S) · Hawaii (H, S) · Idaho (H, S) · Illinois (H, S) · Indiana (H, S) · Iowa (H, S) · Kansas (H, S) · Kentucky (H, S) · Louisiana (H, S) · Maine (H, S) · Maryland (H, S) · Massachusetts (H, S) · Michigan (H, S) · Minnesota (H, S) · Mississippi (H, S) · Missouri (H, S) · Montana (H, S) · Nebraska · Nevada (A, S) · New Hampshire (H, S) · New Jersey (GA, S) · New Mexico (H, S) · New York (A, S) · North Carolina (H, S) · North Dakota (H, S) · Ohio (H, S) · Oklahoma (H, S) · Oregon (H, S) · Pennsylvania (H, S) · Rhode Island (H, S) · South Carolina (H, S) · South Dakota (H, S) · Tennessee (H, S) · Texas (H, S) · Utah (H, S) · Vermont (H, S) · Virginia (H, S) · Washington (H, S) · West Virginia (H, S) · Wisconsin (A, S) · Wyoming (H, S)

2026

State legislative elections (2026) • State legislative special elections (2026) • Primary dates and filing requirements • 2026 Session Dates

2025

State legislative elections (2025) • State legislative special elections (2025) • Primary dates and filing requirements • 2025 Session Dates

Historical elections

2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002 • 2001 • 2000

Features of state legislatures

How vacancies are filled in state legislatures • States with a full-time legislature • State legislatures with term limits • Comparison of state legislative salaries • When state legislators assume office after a general election • Population represented by state legislators • State constitutional articles governing state legislatures • State legislative sessions • Resign-to-run law • State legislature candidate requirements by state • Official names of state legislatures • State legislative chambers that use multi-member districts • Factors Affecting Competitiveness in State Legislative Elections

State senates

Length of terms of state senators • State senators • Partisan composition of state senates • State senators sorted by year first elected

State houses

Length of terms of state representatives • State representatives • Partisan composition of state houses • State representatives sorted by year first elected

Leadership positions

President of the Senate • President Pro Tempore • Senate Majority Leader • Senate Minority Leader • House Majority Leader • House Minority Leader • State Speaker of the House

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates