Gov. Paul LePage missed his chance to veto 65 bills passed by the Legislature in the final weeks of June. The bills have entered the chapters of Maine law, but LePage on Friday has the opportunity to make his case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that his attempted vetoes are valid.
Based on the written arguments LePage’s lawyers have filed in advance of Friday’s in-person arguments, they should be prepared to answer these three questions:
Why did the governor continue to sign bills passed by the Legislature after June 17?
LePage tries to make the case in his written briefs that the Maine Legislature wasn’t appropriately in session after June 17. Maine law, after all, sets the third Wednesday in June — this year, June 17 — as the end date for the Legislature’s first session.
The law allows the Legislature to lengthen its session up to 11 days, but LePage’s lawyers point out the House and Senate didn’t take their first extension votes until June 18. They question whether lawmakers were appropriately in their chambers on that day to cast those votes.
If the argument held water, it could invalidate any legislative action after June 17 — from passage of the budget that is paying the LePage administration’s bills to passage of the bill that allows asylum seekers to collect General Assistance benefits.
But LePage doesn’t appear fully convinced the Legislature shouldn’t have been in Augusta after June 17. He signed seven bills into law the House and Senate enacted after June 17 — including a transportation bond LePage introduced — showing he didn’t dispute their validity.
To be sure, the governor’s legal brief doesn’t argue that all legislative action after June 17 should be invalidated, just that the situation should allow LePage more time under the Constitution to issue vetoes. But the Legislature took the appropriate steps to extend its session as the first matter of business June 18, citing its authority, essentially, to postdate its actions. Meanwhile, no one in the Legislature nor in the LePage administration objected. And nothing in state law nor in legislative rules prevents the Legislature from acting as it did.
Why has the governor, in the past, returned vetoed bills to the Legislature while it’s not in session?
Another crucial point in the LePage argument is that the Legislature’s adjournment on June 30 effectively prevented the governor from returning vetoed bills to the House and Senate so lawmakers could take override votes. The Maine Constitution asserts the typical 10-day veto timeline for a bill applies, “unless the Legislature by their adjournment prevent its return.”
LePage, then, should be able to explain why in 2012, when the Legislature adjourned in the same fashion as it did on June 30 of this year, he didn’t find himself prevented from returning four vetoed bills to the House and Senate even though neither chamber was in session.
As the lawyer for Senate President Michael Thibodeau and House Speaker Mark Eves points out, LePage never attempted to return vetoed bills between June 30 and July 16. Had he tried, he would have found the House clerk and Senate secretary ready to accept them, following long-standing custom. Both officials communicated directly with LePage staff members to let them know of their availability.
In a follow-up brief, LePage’s lawyers refine their argument, stating the Legislature’s adjournment — even a temporary one — infringes on the governor’s veto authority “by denying him access to legislators constituted to carry out legislative business.”
But it’s unclear how LePage is denied access to lawmakers when he can reach them by any number of means when they’re not in Augusta. In fact, LePage himself has demonstrated he has no trouble persuading lawmakers to change their votes even when they’re not convened in Augusta.
How could LePage not have known that the Legislature intended to return to Augusta to consider his vetoes?
LePage’s lawyers argue that communication between the Legislature and the governor’s office was strained during a highly contentious session. On June 30, the governor’s lawyers write, the Legislature adjourned “and there was no record of when they would be back.” This situation meant the governor was prevented from returning bills to the House and Senate.
But the Legislature publicized its intent — through the official legislative record, through tweets from official accounts and through communications to the media — to return to Augusta on July 16, if not needed before, specifically to consider LePage-issued vetoes.
It’s difficult for the governor to argue the Legislature wouldn’t be available to conduct business. It’s even more difficult for him to argue that the governor’s office couldn’t have been aware of lawmakers’ intent to return July 16.
LePage’s lawyers have their chance to make those arguments Friday. They should be prepared to explain how their client’s actions repeatedly have undermined his current legal claims — and how his legal claims defy the historical record.
