Veto-proof state legislatures and opposing party governors in the 2018 elections
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 26 min
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 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.
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]
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.
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]
- ↑ 1.0 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedNE - ↑ Alaska requires a two-thirds vote in a joint meeting of its two legislative chambers, which is 40 of 60 legislators.
- ↑ California State Capitol Museum, "Life Cycle of a Bill," accessed July 21, 2017
- ↑ North Carolina Legislative Library, "North Carolina Veto History and Statistics, 1997-2018," accessed January 9, 2018
- ↑ Citizen Times, "Cooper, fired up Dems set sights on busting GOP super-majority," October 8, 2017
- ↑ Fox 8, "Lawmakers override Gov. Cooper’s budget veto," January 9, 2018
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedEDU - ↑ NPR Illinois, "Education Desk: Evidence-Based School Funding Model Explained," September 26, 2016
- ↑ WTTW, "Education Funding in Illinois: How the Evidence-Based Model Works," September 21, 2016
- ↑ U.S. News and World Report, "Rauner Aide: Democrats' School Funding Plan a CPS 'Bailout'," May 17, 2017
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner vetoes education funding plan, Emanuel accuses him of 'fuzzy math'," August 1, 2017
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Senate overrides Rauner school funding veto, but House hurdle remains," August 13, 2017
- ↑ The Chicago Sun-Times, "Speaker Madigan calls legislators to work — on Governor’s Day," August 9, 2017
- ↑ wglt.org, "Illinois House To Vote Next Week On School Funding Override," August 16, 2017
- ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Madigan calls off Wednesday session in Springfield; no override vote of Rauner for now," August 23, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "SCHOOL funding WINNERS and LOSERS — RAUNER staffing TURMOIL — Saving ABE in CHICAGO," August 25, 2017
- ↑ capitolfax.com, "Education funding reform bill gets just 46 votes," August 28, 2017
- ↑ capitolfax.com, "On second try, education funding reform passes with 73 votes," August 28, 2017
- ↑ capitolfax.com, "React rolls in to passage of education funding reform," August 29, 2017
- ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Bill H.4491," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ Wicked Local Scituate, "Mass. Legislature overrides Gov. Baker’s veto of Lyme disease coverage," August 2, 2016
- ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Bill H.58," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ Boston.com, "Lawmakers vote to override Charlie Baker’s veto of pay raises," February 2, 2017
- ↑ The 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "FY 2018 Final Budget," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, "The State Budget for FY 2018 Including Veto Overrides," December 6, 2017
- ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB1013," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ WTOP, "Md. House of Delegates overrides 2 Hogan vetoes," April 7, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Maryland flexes progressive Democratic muscles to override two Hogan vetoes," January 12, 2018
- ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB0001," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ General Assembly of Maryland, "HB1783," accessed July 20, 2018
- ↑ WBAL TV 11, "General Assembly overrides Hogan's veto of school construction overhaul bill," April 5, 2018
- ↑ The Washington Post, "How Md. Republicans plan to break the state Senate’s supermajority in 2018," May 7, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Republican outside groups take a rare interest in deep-blue Maryland," January 12, 2018
| |||||||||||
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF