Veto Day Looms

7 Comments

by: ohwilleke

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Governor Ritter has until Friday, June 11 to veto bills passed after May 2 in the 2010 legislative session which ended May 12.

The only post-adjournment veto so far has been his relatively uncontroversial veto of HB 1364, allowing sex offenders to choose their own treatment providers in addition to other non-controversial provisions, which was killed when it was revealed that the legislator involved in a late amendment to the bill had a family member affected by the bill.

Legislators being human, a significant share of the most controversial bills are passed at the end of the legislative session. As more and more of those bills are signed, it becomes more and more likely that the Governor might veto those that are have not yet won his signature, the Governor being human, the close veto calls are also the last to be made.

The last week in which the Governor can veto bills often produces fireworks. Stay tuned.

I don’t have a detailed tabulation of which bills were passed at the tail end of the session and which have been signed so far.

All bills passed before that date except HB 1011 (regarding procedures for DMV registration of farm vehicles), have become law, because they become law unless vetoed without ten days. But, the Governor has thirty days from adjournment to veto laws passed at the end of the session.

Is anyone aware of controversial bills not yet signed into law from the end of the session?

7 thoughts on “Veto Day Looms”

farleftfagala says:

June 7, 2010 at 10:35 pm

1241 – Registration of Sprinkler fitters (union friendly)

1388 – Cash fund transfers to the general fund

1408 – Repeals congressional district requirements for the courts

1409 – State employee compensation

Log in to Reply
1. ohwilleke says:
  
  June 8, 2010 at 8:49 pm
  
  Log in to Reply
Awen says:

June 7, 2010 at 11:21 pm

Was of a bill allowing part-time farmers and ranchers to register their trucks as agricultural; that was during the last week of the session.

The bill, HB 1101, passed 99-0. Ritter lauded his support for agriculture in his veto but said the current system was just fine as it is. For farmers and ranchers who can’t make a living farming and have to take jobs elsewhere, this was not viewed positively.

Log in to Reply
1. Ralphie says:
  
  June 7, 2010 at 11:32 pm
  
  Many “gentleman farmers” register tractors, backhoes, etc. and use them in non-agricultural applications such as construction.
  
  Log in to Reply
RedGreen says:

June 7, 2010 at 11:59 pm

House Bill 10-1281, “Concerning the deregulation of telecommunications service in areas where sufficient market competition exists, and making an appropriation therefor.”

House Bill 10-1409, “Concerning the process by which annual salary increases may be awarded to employees in the state personnel system based on performance, job core competencies, and years of service.”

House Bill 10-1287, “Concerning the use of a state-owned motor vehicle for commuting purposes.”

Log in to Reply
1. Earnest says:
  
  June 8, 2010 at 2:10 am
  
  The press report did not put Ritter in a good light vis a vis his veto. It was reported that he veteod the bill because it wasn’t flexible enough as to awarding performance pay, but the rest of the article explained how the bill was flexible in this regard (i.e., making employees merely eligible for pay increases, which would be subject to legislative approval in any event). If the press report is correct, Ritter’s veto annoys me.
  
  I would post a link to the article but the piece o’shit Post website isn’t working for me lately.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Earnest says:
    
    June 8, 2010 at 2:19 am
    
    Here’s the report I had read:
    
    Gov. Bill Ritter this morning vetoed a bill that would have given more regular pay increases to state employees who met basic performance benchmarks.
    
    In his veto message, Ritter lamented the current pay-for-performance system of pay increases that he said are rarely funded and unevenly distributed among state workers.
    
    But he criticized House Bill 1409 for putting automatic pay increases into the state budget for legislative approval each year.
    
    “If this economic downturn has taught us anything, it is that budgetary flexibility is necessary in order to meet the challenges we face in difficult economic times,” Ritter wrote. “It is unwise to put another portion of the state budget on automatic pilot. I fully acknowledge that state employees, along with employees in other sectors, have sacrificed during this current economic downturn.”
    
    . . . .
    
    House Bill 1409 would have qualified state employees who are meeting performance standards for 12 years of stepped pay increases, but any pay hikes still would have to be approved by lawmakers.
    
    Pay increases would not have taken effect for at least three years, assuming the state had money to fund them.
    
    State employees have had no raises the past two years and had furloughs in the current fiscal year ending in June. They face 2.5 percent pay cuts in the next fiscal year, on top of higher contributions they must make to their pensions.
    
    http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
    
    Log in to Reply