The Mississippi Constitution gives the governor the sole authority to call a special session and to set the agenda.
It is one of the few powers granted to the governor by the Mississippi Constitution.
But in reality, the special session power the governor possesses can be limited by legislators if they so choose.
Granted, the Legislature cannot convene a special session. Once legislators end a regular session, they cannot return unless called by the governor or until the next regularly scheduled session. Lawmakers are dependent on the governor to call a special session to allow them to take up a state budget, which they remarkably were unable to pass during the regular session that ended in early April.
Many believe that the governor will have more authority over the budget in special session than in regular session. For instance, can the Legislature consider a bill to fund special projects throughout the state if Gov. Tate Reeves does not include what is known by many as the “Christmas tree bill” in the agenda? Debate over that special projects bill appears to be the major sticking point preventing a budget agreement between the House and Senate. The House wants a Christmas tree bill. The Senate does not.
In 2008, then-Republican Gov. Haley Barbour called the Legislature into special session to levy a tax on hospitals to fund a $90 million Medicaid deficit. House leaders instead tried to pass a “compromise” bill that levied a tax on cigarettes, combined with a smaller hospital tax.
Republicans screamed that the cigarette tax could not be considered because it was not part of Barbour’s call. Then-Speaker Billy McCoy ruled that the governor could set the agenda for the special session — to provide more funding for Medicaid — but could not dictate how that funding was derived.
The whole issue became moot because Democrats could not garner the votes to pass their proposal. Yet, they also were able to block the hospital tax increase.
The end result was that the special session ended without the Medicaid funding issue being resolved. The issue lingered for more than a year.
In the 82-day 2002 special session, then-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove placed on the agenda the issue of providing protection from lawsuits for medical providers. He said he would expand the agenda to allow lawsuit protection for all businesses after the medical provider bill reached his desk.
But the Senate leaders said the governor could not limit how they addressed lawsuit protection. They wanted to do it all in one bill.
But the House, not as set on what some called “tort reform,” said it could only address the issue of lawsuit protection for medical providers because of the agenda set by the governor.
For several days, the two chambers literally sat and stared at each other.
Finally, then-House Speaker Tim Ford asked for an official opinion from Attorney General Mike Moore on whether lawsuit protection could be considered for all businesses. Moore’s opinion said that only lawsuit protection for medical providers could be considered since that was the limit of the governor’s call.
The AG’s opinion did not carry the force of law. But the Senate leaders, who said they did not agree with the opinion, finally acquiesced and worked with the House to pass lawsuit protection for medical providers. And then, Musgrove, true to his word, expanded the call to give legislators the ability to consider additional protections for businesses.
The bottom line is that lawmakers have substantial leeway in a special session to interpret the governor’s call. By the same token, the governor can veto legislation if he thinks the Legislature exceeded his call or not sign the bill and ask the courts to block the legislative action.
But the Mississippi Supreme Court has been reluctant to get involved in the inner workings of the Legislature.
For instance, the state constitution gives any legislator the option to have a bill read before final passage. That provision has been used as a method to slow down the legislative process or as a form of protest. In recent years, the legislative leadership countered by using a computer application to have the bills read at a super high speed. The program, spitting out words at an incomprehensible speed, was dubbed the “demon chipmunk.”
The leadership was sued, claiming the demon chipmunk speed violated the state constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the legislative leadership and the demon chipmunk.
The majority opinion read, “We hold the court lacks constitutional authority to interfere in the procedural workings of the Legislature, even when those procedures are constitutionally mandated.”
If Supreme Court justices are not going to strike down the demon chipmunk, would they get involved in a fight over the interpretation of the governor’s special session agenda?
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Control of a special session is the governor’s superpower, but is it really that super? )
Also on site :