War rages on

The Navajo Nation Council is not giving President Joe Shirley Jr. his line-item veto without a fight. A long fight.

The council on Tuesday failed to override Shirley's first use of the line-item veto, but the delegates warned that they haven't given up yet.

Both sides have spent much of the last week warring over whether the voter-approved line-item veto - authority for the president to excise only portions of spending bills passed by the council - is subject to a council override.

Some delegates, including Speaker Lawrence Morgan (Iyanbito/Pinedale) questioned if the line-item veto is legal.

Omer Begay (Cornfields/Greasewood Springs/Klagetoh/Wide Ruins) said the council creates laws by drafting bills that follow a specific format when proposing a change to existing law. The existing language is set forth and then the proposed new language is shown. The line-item veto that voters endorsed in a Dec. 15 special election was not presented that way, he said.

"Without utilizing the proper statutes, this does not exist," Begay said.

Meeting in special session, the delegates discussed a resolution to override Shirley's decision to trim a council bill from $7.5 million down to $2 million. He vetoed appropriations to chapters for employment and veterans programs, saying the chapters have plenty of money for these purposes from other sources. He allowed funding for student summer employment.

In the meantime, Shirley is standing by a legal opinion issued July 9 by Attorney General Louis Denetsosie, which says the Navajo Nation Code does not authorize the council to override a line-item veto.

Citing the opinion, Shirley on Monday issued an executive order prohibiting the offices of the Controller, Management and Budget and the Division of Community Development from processing appropriations related to the items he vetoed.

A day later, the council met to vote on overriding Shirley's line-item vetoes. However, in light of the AG's opinion and Shirley's preemptive strike, the bill died on the floor.

The council did direct its chief legislative counsel, Frank Seanez, to draft his own opinion in response to Denetsosie.

When no delegate motioned for a vote on the override, sponsor Johnny Naize (Nazlini/Tsélani-Cottonwood) withdrew the bill. However, Naize said the council would review it again.

"It's not dead yet," agreed Young Jeff Tom (Mariano Lake/Smith Lake).

The signature petitions calling for the ballot initiative on the line-item veto specified that it would not be subject to override by the council. However, the ballot language adopted by the Navajo Board of Election Supervisors did not include the provision.

Shirley's initiative committee did not challenge the omission.

Many council delegates believe that means they do have authority to override the line-item veto, the same as any other presidential veto.

By that rationale, Seanez said the council would have until the end of the next regular council session to override the bill. The council's summer session is scheduled to begin Monday, July 19.

In his opinion, Denetsosie stated that the council does not have authority to override Shirley's line-item veto. He quotes the original language found in Shirley's initiative petition: "Budget line items vetoed by the President will not be subject to the Navajo Nation Council override."

Not only did voters approve the measure, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court upheld the election results in a May 28 ruling, Denetsosie states.

Shirley's executive order states, "Any attempt by the Navajo Nation Council to override a presidential line item veto is null and void and in violation of Navajo law."

His order prohibits the offices involved from processing any funds related to the veto.

During the single-day session Tuesday, some delegates were concerned about overriding the line-item veto.

"The Navajo Nation constituents voted to make this clear," said Ervin Keeswood (Tsé Daa K'aan).

He noted that there is no language in the code that gives the council authority to override a line-item veto.

"By what authority does this council now have to pursue this?" he asked. "No law exists other than the (Dec. 15) vote. Can the council even move on this document?"

Morgan asked, rhetorically, if Shirley signed a portion of the bill into place, had he inadvertently approved the entire $7.5 million spending bill?

However, in his opinion, Denetsosie stated that the line-item veto authority became law as soon as the voters approved it. He quoted from the Supreme Court decision stating that the people "have the inherent authority reserved to them to enact laws."

"The people's laws are superior to the statutory laws enacted by the council," Denetsosie said, quoting the Supreme Court decision.

"Thus, there can be no dispute that the budget line item veto initiative is now valid Navajo law," Denetsosie stated. "There is no reason or purpose for the (council) to attempt to override the vetoes. It would be a waste of already severely-strained Navajo Nation resources."

At the end of the special session, Tom asked for - and the council approved - a directive to Seanez to draft his own opinion, using authority the council granted to him earlier in the year.

And though the veto override died on the council floor, Tom is likely to bring it back during the regular session next week.

"The code was not ratified or changed," Tom said. "In the ballot language, they should have told people the council can't override. So both sides should be defending (their views). It's still alive."

Back to top ^