Why Should Delaware Care?
Delaware’s annual Bond Bill funds large capital projects, such as road improvements, new schools and upgraded state facilities. In recent years, it also has featured a litany of more controversial expenditures. Until this year, none of those were vetoed by a Delaware governor.
Gov. Matt Meyer vetoed a controversial expansion of Dover’s Legislative Hall from the state’s capital spending bill on Tuesday.
In a statement, Meyer cited cost concerns as the reason he employed the little-used line-item veto. He claimed the $35 million project to upgrade security inside the statehouse, among other improvements, could “be addressed at a lower cost.”
The comments follow similar affordability themed rhetoric from Meyer over the past year, including last month when he called on state energy regulators to suspend an electricity-rate increase from Delmarva Power.
Meyer also noted that the $35 million – the third largest appropriation of any kind in the state bond bill – was only an initial allocation toward the larger project anticipated to cost upward of $116 million.
The veto could also reignite tensions between the governor and lawmakers within his own Democratic Party that had largely gone dormant in recent months following a contentious first year in office for Meyer.
In a joint statement, Rep. Debra Heffernan (D-Bellefonte) and Sen. Jack Walsh (D-Stanton), co-chairs of the state’s Joint Capital Improvement Committee, condemned Meyer’s veto.
The Joint Capital Improvement Committee drafts the state’s capital budget each year following an initial proposal from the governor.
Heffernan and Walsh said the expansion would have improved safety and accessibility within the statehouse. The current layout presents a variety of challenges for residents seeking to participate in state government, they said.
“It’s not only disappointing, but frankly perplexing, that the Governor chose to veto the Bond Bill language that would have funded these long-overdue renovations,” the lawmakers said.
Democratic leaders in both chambers, along with House Minority Leader Tim Dukes, also issued a joint statement condemning Meyer’s veto, saying it ignores recommendations made by law enforcement to make “long overdue” security upgrades to the statehouse.
“This is not a vanity project,” they said. “It’s about maximizing public participation in the democratic process while keeping people safe.”
The leaders also said they only learned of Meyer’s veto “within minutes” of his public announcement and are still determining their path forward.
Should lawmakers choose to override Meyer’s latest veto, Democrats could do so without any bipartisan support. A veto override vote requires a three-fifths majority in both legislative chambers – a margin Democrats already control.
But not all Democrats are opposed to Meyer’s veto.
Rep. Madinah Wilson-Anton (D-Bear) said the veto was “the right thing to do for Delaware taxpayers.” She said the $35 million allocated to the expansion could have gone to other, more timely projects, like road repairs across the state.
Wilson-Anton, a member of the progressive flank of the legislature’s Democratic caucus, said she has no appetite to override Meyer’s veto. It is not immediately clear how other progressives feel about an override vote, but enough organized opposition could kill the possibility entirely.
What would the expansion fund?
Also unclear is whether Republicans would support overriding Meyer’s veto.
House Minority Whip Jeff Spiegelman (R-Clayton) said Meyer made “some good points” in his veto statement that some Republicans are receptive to.
He also said the $35 million appropriation reflects the most costly of three upgrade proposals that legislative leaders considered. He said the other proposals “still take into account the security needs that we have.”
Spiegelman declined to disclose specific details of proposed security upgrades but said the area where Capitol Police screen visitors is too small.
Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives Rich Puffer, who also chairs a committee that recommended the expansion project, compared the security upgrades to the state’s Carvel Building in Wilmington, where the governor and many Cabinet agencies keep offices.
There, glass barriers block visitors from entering the first floor lobby of the building until they clear a security checkpoint.
Last month, Sarah Fulton, spokeswoman for the Senate Democratic Caucus, said the $35 million appropriation would pay for an expansion of the security checkpoint at the entrance to Legislative Hall. She said the plans called for an increase in the size of the area by “three or four times” to allow Capitol Police to conduct more thorough screening.
The money would also pay for enhanced door locks and cameras, among other items, she said.
While the project is a part of a larger plan to renovate the Legislative Hall complex, Fulton noted the $35 million is separate from a $23 million appropriation made last year to fund construction of a new parking garage.
Additional plans for a tunnel to be built between the parking garage and Legislative Hall are not yet funded, Fulton said.
“The parking garage is paid for. This is for more in-building security enhancements,” she said.
The statement further said other “unmet needs, including school construction, housing and community investments, should take precedence over expanding government office space.”
Has this happened before?
There are few historical records of Delaware governors using their line-item veto authority.
Most noteworthy was Gov. Pete du Pont’s 1982 veto of a funding line for a drunk-driving enforcement program. According to newspaper archives, du Pont signed the veto — which reduced an appropriation from $135,000 to $20,000 — in order to keep the state budget within state limits.
The veto resulted in a legal challenge and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling that declared governors may only use a line-item veto for appropriation bills that contain multiple spending items.
Meyer’s veto appears to fall in line with the ruling, though it is unclear if lawmakers will challenge his authority in this instance.
