Lawmakers can override the governor’s vetoes only during the session in which the bills are rejected, according to experts’ interpretation of the law. But typically, governors veto bills after sine die – the last day of session.
In 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a nearly record-breaking 76 bills and one budget item— widely seen as his way to punish members for failing to pass his priority bills. Just two bills were vetoed during the session, in the window that lawmakers could have voted to override them.
Now, some lawmakers want to change that process. A proposal by Sen. Brian Birdwell would amend the Texas Constitution to allow legislators to briefly meet after the regular session ends to reconsider bills that passed by more than two-thirds of members.
But Texas has so much freedumb. /s
I say we block them at the border and stop all trade. They are holding us back. Apologies to the decent Texans who live next door to crazy cowboy pieces of shit that vote against their interests.
Better idea. Govenor cannot vete a bill after end of session
Yes and no. Then the legislators could then pass all the bills at the end of a session and skip the governors ability to veto anything, which harms the separation of power that should be happening now. Really, just make it so the legislators can override a veto no matter when it was vetoed.
The ability to necro a 30 year old vetoed bill doesn’t sit right with me. There should be some kind of time limit on it.
There would (should?) still need a 2/3rd majority to vote yes again, but you make a fair point. Especially given our current federal government.
If it has the votes to pass, what’s the issue?
It feels like it’s open to manipulation. Resurrecting something decades old that the public forgot about, from a different environment. Typically when new legislation is announced, the process allows enough time for public input and objection. This could just be a single vote without much warning.
Either way works for me
Better better idea, remove the stupid arbitrary limit that is a ‘session’ entirely. Bill passes, gov vetoes, Congress can pass again or not at any point after veto within, say, 90 session days of said veto, so if gov vetoes right before a break, Congress still have 90 days to pass again starting when they come back from break.
I swear this shit could be so simple if Americans hadn’t been brainwashed into thinking “life isn’t fair” is an excuse for acting in bad faith.
Then legislative positions would be even more inaccessible to those not already wealthy.
TX legislative pay is $7,200 per year plus a per diem of $221 while in session.
“Therefore, the total compensation for a regular session would be $38,140 ($7,200 base + $30,940 per diem). Over a two-year term, the total pay is typically around $45,340 ($7,200 base pay x 2 years + per diem for one 140-day regular session). This relatively low base pay highlights that the legislators’ roles are often viewed as part-time public service rather than full-time career positions.”
https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-faq/what-is-the-salary-for-texas-legislators/
I fail to see how removing the time limit on being able to veto/override said veto would have anything to do with congressional pay. They’d still be there working the same amount, it’s just removing blockage from the legislative process….
They would need to have another session to vote to override the veto. So they’d also need a mechanism to reconvene, given they are only in session for 140 days every other year.
By extending that session or adding another, the legislators would need more time off from their other jobs potentially at a pay cut. Legislator are only paid for time in session.
Why do you need another session, just allow the veto to be overridden during the next regularly scheduled session, and if they have to schedule sessions specific to bills, that seems like a terrible way to get stuff done.
Sessions only take place for a few months every other year. To override a veto from Abbott in July 2025, the legislature would need to wait until early 2027. In order for the legislature to act more quickly to override a veto, they would need the power to call a session or there would need to be rules added to address the vetoes that take place after the legislative session is over. I suppose the governor could be given a deadline to sign, veto, or refuse to take action on a bill a certain number of days after the conclusion of a session and the legislature could have a mini session to discuss the bills that were vetoed or where action wasn’t taken for a predetermined amount of time after the governor’s deadline.
The governor has the power to call a special session between normal sessions to address issues. Those issues are supposed to be outlined before the special session starts. Obviously he’s not going to call a session to address a bill that was vetoed unless it was maybe vetoed over a couple small points.
Not a bad solution either
