EDITORIAL: Indiana's veto override is out of step with most of US

Why exactly do we have a governor?

With the Indiana General Assembly now adjourned, Gov. Eric Holcomb has been spending this month signing the many enrolled acts that have come out of this year's short legislative session.

So far, Holcomb has reviewed 177 pieces of legislation that made it to his desk. Like most years, almost all of that legislation gets the final signature from the governor and is then ready to become new public law.

This year, Holcomb signed 175 of those bills. He vetoed two - HEA 1211 "State and Local Administration," which he rejected because he felt it would derail ongoing broadband investment in the state, and HEA 1041 "Participation in School Sports," which would ban transgender girls from participating in girls sports.

The veto on the transgender sports ban infuriated many on the social conservative right who have made transgender individuals the most recent target of an ongoing culture crusade, with state lawmakers swearing they'll override Holcomb's veto.

And, we suspect they'll have absolutely no issue doing so, as Indiana is one of a very small minority of states that maintains a perplexing majority-only veto override for legislation.

Considering that all bills require at least majority support to get to the governor's desk in the first place, legitimately any and every piece of legislation can be forced through, even over veto, as long as lawmakers don't have a change of heart from their initial approval.

Calling it a veto "power" is an overstatement, since the governor has, in practice, absolutely no power to stop any piece of legislation.

Indiana is one of just six states to relegate their governor to a figurehead when it comes to new laws, with only West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama having majority-only veto override rules.

Seven states - Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois and Nebraska and North Carolina require at least three-fifths of the legislature to override a veto. Alaska is unique in requiring two-thirds vote of a joint session of its chambers.

The 36 other states and the federal Congress all require a two-thirds majority to override an executive veto.

The threat of veto - in states and Congress where it actually can be considered a "threat" - is one more check and balance that can help ensure rounded legislation that is agreeable across party lines or, even in the case of a state like Utah where its governor also vetoed a transgender sports ban, that even intra-party forces have had their concerns heard.

But as we saw frequently this session, the Indiana General Assembly has little interest in taking input and critique, perfectly content to ignore the general public and bludgeon forward over the concerns even of other members of the GOP supermajority who might dare to have qualms.

Indiana has a robust Republican supermajority, so even having a two-thirds veto override bar might not prevent lawmakers from overturning vetoes. But with a narrower margin for success, it would force the caucus to accommodate the concerns of those on the border and give more credence to those who raise issues they want addressed.

But with a majority-only veto override, the concerns of any individual Hoosier, any group of protestors no matter how large, any individual lawmaker, even the governor of Indiana, can be summarily ignored.

It's the feared "tyranny of the majority" fully realized and one that lawmakers should - but likely won't voluntarily - correct to bring Indiana into the norm of American representative governance.