Legislative counsel: Alaska precedent suggests governor can reduce or strike appropriations; question about repealers not fully settled

Juneau — During the House Finance Committee hearing Jan. 26, Marie Marks of Legislative Legal Services briefed lawmakers on the constitutional question of whether the governor may use the line-item veto to strike language that repeals previously enacted appropriations.

Marks summarized the issue in plain terms: does the governor's constitutional veto power include striking language that does not itself appropriate a sum of money but instead repeals an earlier appropriation? She said the Alaska Supreme Court has not squarely addressed that precise question but cited a 2001 case (Knowles) that distinguished reducing an appropriation (lessening an amount) from striking (lessening to zero). Marks explained that if a legislature's action constitutes a new appropriation (for example a reappropriation using unspent funds), the governor likely has the power to reduce or strike the new appropriation consistent with Knowles.

Committee members asked whether, if the legislature attempted a clawback of unspent funds by reappropriating them, the governor could then veto the reappropriated expenditure. Marks replied that, where a reappropriation is a new appropriation using previously unspent money, the governor likely may diminish or strike it provided the net quantitative effect is to diminish the amount appropriated.

Marks flagged that the precise legal contours are unsettled and suggested the committee could seek additional formal legal review if members wish to pursue the question further.

The committee accepted Marks’ explanation and deferred further legal action; no formal legal ruling was provided at the hearing.