Published May 14, 2007
Wither the veto now?
We took note recently of the governors annimus toward unnecessary use of emergency clauses, striking six at the time of the story in such bills as parking permit regulations and bigger bills like WASL requirement delays.Emergency bills, remember, go into effect immediately and cannot be put to a referendum of the people. It takes half as many signatures to qualify for a referendum as an initiative.So, why did Gov. Chris Gregoire leave in Section 2 of the highly controversial HB2079, a short bill redefining what consititutes using nonunion member fees for political purposes?Clearly, the emergency clause could have been vetoed, its the second section of a one-page bill:
Sec. 2. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately.
Note that on the same day she signed the union fees bill, Gregoire took out the emergency clause in HB1811:
This bill helps to promote fire safety at nightclubs, while giving nightclub owners the necessary time to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. The bill contains an unnecessary emergency clause. With the emergency clause, the bill would go into effect on July 1, without it, early August. Regardless of the effective date of the bill, my signing it into law tells nightclub owners that the two year implementation delay will be in effect. Emergency clauses should be used sparingly and only when necessary. (Our emphasis)
Jason Mercier of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation called the original vetoes commendable, but said hed like to take it back after there was no veto on HB2079. He said the omission highlights the need for a constitutional amendment to restrict emergency clauses.UPDATE: We had a second to ask Gregiore about it, and to preface, remember that the bill deals with how the teachers union in particular accounts for money received from those who want to pay only for representation, not political action. Their current accounting is subject to a lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court.So why not veto the emergency clause?Because they asked me specifically that it not be vetoed because they continue to take money in and this will relieve the cloud, with the emergency clause in place, she said. Rather than wait until some later date when from here till there will be a cloud over what use they can make with the money.She vetoed another emergency clause today, in HB1883, relating to the Higher Education Coordinating Board.