The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6929 December 30, 1996 GOVERNOR: Application of the gubernatorial line item veto power found in Const 1963, art 5, s 19, to a portion of section 305(3) of 1995 Enrolled HB 4410 The Governor's veto of that portion of section 305(3) of 1995 Enrolled HB 4410, which appropriated state funds to reimburse counties for housing parolees convicted of new felonies, was a valid exercise of the veto authority vested in the Governor by Const 1963, art 5, s 19. Honorable Virgil Clark Smith State Senator The Capitol Lansing, Michigan You have asked if the Governor's veto of that portion of section 305(3) of 1995 Enrolled HB 4410, which appropriates state funds to reimburse counties for housing parolees convicted of new felonies, was a valid exercise of the veto authority vested in the Governor by Const 1963, art 5, s 19. (1) 1995 Enrolled HB 4410 was a supplemental appropriations bill. As approved by the Legislature, section 305(3) of that bill provided: Sec. 305(3). The county jail reimbursement program shall reimburse counties for housing parolees who have been convicted of a new felony, parole violators, and offenders being returned by the department of corrections from community placement to institutional status and for prisoners who volunteer for placement in a county jail. [ Emphasis added.] Although the Governor signed HB 4410 into law as 1995 PA 242, he first vetoed that portion of section 305(3) that is italicized above. With the deletion of the vetoed language, section 305(3) became identical to the language in the original act appropriating funds for the county jail reimbursement program. See sections 101 and 1302(3) of 1995 Enrolled HB 4418, which became 1995 PA 153 (imm. eff. July 12, 1995). Const 1963, art 5, s 19, provides: The governor may disapprove any distinct item or items appropriating money in any appropriation bill. The part or parts approved shall become law, and the item or items disapproved shall be void unless re-passed according to the method prescribed for the passage of other bills over the executive veto. OAG, 1985-1986, No 6399, p 402 (November 13, 1986), reviewed the constitutional history of Const 1963, art 5, s 19, and concluded at p 409: An item in an appropriations bill contains the subject and the amount of an appropriation. The appropriations bill may contain one or more items. The line item may be a single line or contained in a numbered paragraph of an appropriations bill. The item must set apart a specific portion of money. [ Citations omitted.] The purpose and effect of the vetoed language in section 305(3) was plainly to add a new category of prisoners for whom counties would be entitled to seek reimbursement from the state. The vetoed language of section 305(3) thus contains the subject of an appropriation. Further, although section 305 does not specify the exact amount of the appropriation available for this purpose, it does set apart a specific portion of money to be ascertained on a date prior to payment as provided by law. Under the vetoed language of section 305(3), a portion of the $14,103,600 appropriated in section 101 of 1995 PA 153 for a "[c]ounty jail reimbursement program" would have been expended to reimburse counties for housing parolees convicted of new felonies. OAG, 1987-1988, No 6544, p 410, 412 (October 27, 1988), concluded that "a specific item of appropriation need not be definite in amount at the time of the enactment of the appropriations bill." Moreover, as was stated in OAG, 1985-1986, No 6399, supra, p 409, "the Legislature may not circumvent the Governor's constitutionally granted veto power by using 'language' rather than a strict single line item approach." Here, the vetoed language of section 305(3) sets aside an ascertainable sum of money to be paid out to counties for a specific new purpose. It thus constitutes an item of appropriation and is subject to the veto authority of the Governor under Const 1963, art 5, s 19. OAG, 1991-1992, No 6684, p 46, 48-50 (June 11, 1991), concluded that language in two subsections of an appropriations act, setting aside specific dollar amounts for specific prison rehabilitation and education programs, were line item appropriations in paragraph form that appropriated portions of a larger dollar amount appropriated for this general purpose in another subsection of the same appropriations act. The only difference here is that the language in section 305(3) of 1995 Enrolled HB 4410, which identifies the categories of prisoners for which the state will reimburse the counties, does not contain a specific dollar amount for each prisoner category. However, the dollar amount for each prisoner category is ascertainable within the total appropriation contained in section 101 of 1995 PA 153 for a "[c]ounty jail reimbursement program." Thus, the italicized portion of section 305(3) sets aside an ascertainable sum certain of state money for a specific purpose that is subject to veto by the Governor under Const 1963, art 5, s 19, as a line item appropriation stated in paragraph form. OAG, 1991-1992, No 6684, at p 50. It is my opinion, therefore, that the Governor's veto of that portion of section 305(3) of 1995 Enrolled HB 4410, which appropriated state funds to reimburse counties for housing parolees convicted of new felonies, was a valid exercise of the veto authority vested in the Governor by Const 1963, art 5, s 19. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)