The Puzzle of State Line-Item Vetoes: What Can Governors

In the complex world of state budgeting, governors often face the daunting task of managing sprawling appropriations bills filled with countless spending items. The puzzle of state line-item vetoes revolves around the question: what can governors actually strike from these bills? While the power to veto parts of a budget seems straightforward, the reality varies widely across states, influenced by legal interpretations, constitutional language, and political strategy.

Line-item vetoes allow governors to remove specific expenditures without rejecting an entire bill, theoretically offering a tool to curb wasteful or unpopular spending. However, the scope of this authority is far from uniform. Some governors can only veto dollar amounts, while others can target entire projects or programs. Understanding what can be struck and how these decisions are shaped is key to grasping the real influence governors wield over state finances.

• 44 states granting line-item veto power to governors
• 2009 year Kansas governor used line-item veto to strike university spending rules
• supermajority typical legislative threshold required to override a line-item veto

What is the line-item veto power and which states have it?

Definition of the power

The line-item veto power enables governors to remove specific provisions or expenditures from budget bills while allowing the remainder of the legislation to become law. This authority is primarily exercised on appropriations bills, giving governors a targeted tool to control state spending without vetoing entire budgets. Typically, this power does not extend to policy or revenue bills, meaning governors cannot strike sections related to laws or tax changes, only discrete spending items within a budget. For example, a governor can veto a $5 million allocation for a particular program but approve the rest of a $50 billion state budget bill.

Scope by state

As of 2026, 44 states grant their governors line-item veto authority over appropriations bills. Notable exceptions include Nebraska, where the governor lacks any line-item veto power, and Vermont, which also does not provide this authority. The prevalence of this power reflects a widespread recognition of the governor’s role in fiscal oversight. Among states with the power, usage and limits vary; some allow vetoes down to individual spending lines, while others restrict vetoes to broader budget categories.

• 44 states allow line-item veto on appropriations bills
• Nebraska and Vermont forbid governors from using the line-item veto
• Authority applies only to spending, excluding policy and revenue bills
• Appropriations bills in these states often exceed $50 billion annually, highlighting the veto’s fiscal impact

Which parts of a budget can governors actually strike with a line-item veto?

Appropriations vs. policy items

Governors can use the line-item veto to strike specific appropriations or spending items within a state budget, but they generally cannot veto non-appropriation elements such as policy directives or statutory language. In practice, this means governors often remove funding allocations for discrete programs, agencies, or projects while leaving broader legislative mandates intact. For example, a governor may eliminate a $5 million grant to a state university but cannot erase a policy requiring the university to implement certain standards. The scope of the line-item veto varies by state: in about 30 states, governors can veto dollar amounts within appropriations bills, while in others, like Kansas, the veto extends to entire program appropriations or spending requirements attached to those funds.

Examples of vetoed items

Concrete instances illustrate how governors wield this veto power. In 2009, the governor of Kansas used the line-item veto to remove requirements dictating how state universities could spend their appropriated funds, effectively striking programmatic controls rather than just raw dollar amounts. Other common targets include funding for specific agency initiatives, capital projects, or individual grants that may total in the millions of dollars. However, governors cannot typically excise entire policy provisions embedded within the budget that do not involve direct spending. This distinction preserves legislative intent on broader governance issues while allowing executive control over fiscal details.

• Line-item veto authority exists in 44 states as of 2026.
• In Kansas (2009), the veto struck university spending requirements rather than just dollar figures.
• Approximately 30 states allow vetoing of specific dollar amounts within appropriations bills.
• Non-appropriation policy directives embedded in budgets are usually exempt from line-item veto.

What are the common misconceptions about the line-item veto’s reach?

Limits on veto scope

The line-item veto does not grant governors the authority to rewrite or add new language to budget bills; it strictly permits the removal of specific appropriations or spending lines as defined by state law. In the 44 states that allow this power, governors can only excise designated portions of a bill rather than veto entire legislative measures. For example, in Kansas, the governor’s line-item veto has been used to eliminate detailed spending requirements for state universities without altering the underlying budgetary framework. This power is confined to items explicitly listed in the appropriation bill, meaning broad or lump-sum spending programs cannot be struck unless they are itemized. Consequently, governors cannot veto entire programs like a $250 million education initiative unless the funding is broken down into identifiable components.

Misunderstood powers

A common misconception is that governors can target tax or revenue provisions with the line-item veto, but this is generally prohibited under state constitutions or statutes. Unlike spending items, revenue measures such as tax increases or fee adjustments are usually protected from line-item vetoes to preserve legislative intent on fiscal policy. Furthermore, the veto cannot be used to insert new budget language or conditions, limiting governors to partial deletions rather than amendments or additions. This means a governor cannot reshape a $1 billion transportation budget by changing its terms but can only remove specific line items if the bill’s structure allows it. These constraints underscore the line-item veto’s role as a tool for expenditure control rather than comprehensive budget rewriting.

• 44 states grant governors line-item veto authority
• Kansas governor’s veto used to remove university spending requirements in 2009
• Broad programs like $250 million education initiatives cannot be vetoed unless itemized
• Tax or revenue provisions are generally exempt from line-item veto
• Governors may only remove, not add or rewrite, budget language

How do legal and political limits restrict governors’ use of line-item vetoes?

Constitutional constraints

State constitutions and judicial interpretations define the scope and process of governors’ line-item veto powers, often restricting their reach. For example, 44 states grant this power, but many specify which types of appropriations can be vetoed and which cannot. In Kansas, a 2009 attorney general opinion clarified that the governor could veto funding earmarked for specific purposes, such as requirements on state university spending, but could not repeal entire programmatic mandates within a budget bill. Additionally, legislative override procedures impose further limits: in roughly 30 states, overrides require a supermajority, commonly two-thirds, which makes it difficult for legislatures to reverse a veto. This threshold means governors’ vetoes often stand unless facing strong bipartisan opposition. These constitutional and statutory rules combine to limit the ability of governors to strike broadly or arbitrarily, confining them to cutting discrete budget lines without nullifying entire spending programs.

Political considerations

Beyond formal legal limits, governors face political pressures that shape how aggressively they use line-item vetoes. Excessive or controversial vetoes risk alienating legislators and interest groups, potentially resulting in backlash that undermines future cooperation or re-election prospects. For instance, governors in states with divided government or narrow legislative majorities may avoid vetoes that jeopardize key alliances. Moreover, public opinion and media scrutiny can deter governors from striking popular programs or favored projects. The political calculus often leads to a restrained approach, where governors strategically wield vetoes to control spending without triggering legislative retaliation. This dynamic, combined with constitutional rules, ensures the line-item veto remains a measured fiscal tool rather than an unchecked power.

• Kansas attorney general opinion (2009) defining veto scope
• 44 states granting line-item veto power
• Approximately 30 states requiring a two-thirds legislative supermajority to override vetoes
• Budget appropriations to state universities as a common veto target

How does the line-item veto influence state fiscal policy and budget negotiations?

Budget control tool

The line-item veto allows governors in 44 states to directly influence state fiscal policy by removing specific expenditures from the budget while approving the remainder, effectively controlling spending growth and curbing earmarks. For example, in Kansas, the governor utilized this power in 2009 to eliminate a $12 million university earmark that prescribed rigid spending requirements, thus promoting more flexible fiscal discipline. This targeted veto authority helps governors enforce budgetary priorities and often results in trimming billions of dollars in state spending annually, as seen in states like Texas where vetoes have cut over $500 million in proposed appropriations in a single fiscal year. By striking individual budget items, governors can reduce wasteful or politically motivated allocations without jeopardizing the overall passage of the budget bill.

Negotiation leverage

Governors leverage the line-item veto in budget negotiations to gain concessions from legislators by signaling which spending lines they are willing to veto. This power provides a strategic advantage, as it enables governors to partially approve budgets, expediting passage while applying pressure on lawmakers to adjust funding requests. In states such as Illinois, where budget impasses have lasted over 200 days, the threat or use of line-item vetoes has shortened negotiation timelines by compelling lawmakers to prioritize essential programs. The veto also shapes funding priorities, since governors tend to veto items that exceed a threshold percentage of discretionary spending—commonly around 3% to 5%—to maintain fiscal discipline without derailing the entire budget.

• Line-item veto authority exists in 44 states
• Examples of vetoed amounts range from $12 million (Kansas university earmark) to $500 million (Texas appropriations)
• Budget impasses reduced from over 200 days using veto leverage (Illinois)
• Typical veto threshold: 3% to 5% of discretionary spending

Frequently asked questions

Key takeaways

• 44 states empower governors with line-item vetoes on appropriations
• Governors can remove specific spending items but not policy or tax provisions
• Legal interpretations and court rulings shape veto limits state by state
• Line-item vetoes serve as key tools for fiscal discipline and budget control
• Legislatures can override vetoes but often face high vote thresholds