As the governor's defenders have noted, no member of the Legislature should have been taken aback by his veto of the bill, a holdover from the previous session. He served notice early -- in his State of the State address -- of his concern about some of the provisions that had been bobtailed onto what started out as economic development legislation. After even more unrelated provisions were added, the only question was whether he would try to exercise his line-item veto power or turn thumbs down on the entire bill.

While the governor unquestionably can veto sections of the state Appropriations Bill, it wasn't clear he had the power to veto only sections of the Life Sciences Act. He actually pondered that question until the 11th hour and wound up vetoing the bill as a whole. He gave the lawmakers a detailed list of its flaws, while acknowledging that it contained some good provisions. The lawmakers didn't give him the courtesy of debate. Both chambers overrode his veto in less than 24 hours.

Now, according to a story by our legislative reporter Clay Barbour, some lawmakers are complaining that they hadn't expected the governor's strong reaction to the override because an aide told them to "vote your conscience."

House Speaker David Wilkins was quoted as saying: "When a governor wants a certain vote, his people usually come around and say, 'Can you help us on this?' or 'We need your vote.' They don't usually say, 'Vote your conscience.' "

We'd say, good for the governor's aide. Legislators always should vote their consciences. Perhaps they have been too long conditioned to arm-twisting.

Of course, this governor isn't about politics as usual. That's one of the reasons he was elected. He was for term limits in Congress when it wasn't popular, and he kept his promise. He wants to restructure state government, and he's tried to keep that promise. But he's run up against an obstinate Senate, where it is very much politics as usual.

As for the Life Sciences Act, at least one senator with a pet project in the bill previously had vowed to sue if the governor used his line-item veto. Would the complaining lawmakers have been as outraged if one of their colleagues took the governor to the Supreme Court as they are at the prospect of the governor using that remedy?

The fact is the governor is considering asking the courts to settle a constitutional dispute that is basic to the legislative process. The state constitution says bills must be related to only one purpose. That simply isn't the case with the Life Sciences Act, which even the lawmakers called the "kitchen sink" bill.

Apparently, there are legislators who feel that the governor needs a lesson in how to go along to get along. If they give him income-tax reform, the theory goes, then he shouldn't fight them on constitutionally suspect legislation.

But not all lawmakers are taking the governor to task. Charleston's Glenn McConnell, President Pro Tem of the Senate, noted in our story that the governor has tried the less confrontational approach with little success. And Dorchester Sen. Bill Branton told us earlier he feels the governor had every right to ask the courts to settle a constitutional issue.

Call it idealism, but we believe the legislators should give the governor income-tax reform if they believe it is good legislation. And the governor should ask the court to rule on the constitutionality of the Life Sciences Act because the principle at stake is critical to the legislative process. Be it in the Legislature, or the governor's office, there's generally room for compromise, but in all instances, actions should be governed by conscience.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/033004/edi_30edit1.shtml