holding that, “[b]ecause the legislative and executive branches never enacted a balanced budget for the 2010-11 biennium, use of the unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the [unallotment] statute”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, “[b]ecause the legislative and executive branches never enacted a balanced budget for the 2010-11 biennium, use of the unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the [unallotment] statute”
- noting that the “Legislature has the primary responsibility to establish the spending priorities for the state through the enactment of appropriation laws” (citing Minn. Const, art. IV, § 22; Minn. Const, art. XI, § 1)
- noting that the line-item veto power “must be construed narrowly to prevent usurpation of the Legislature’s proper authority”
- “[T]he absence of any timing definition leaves [the statute] ambiguous... .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ANDERSON, G. BARRY,
Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Gildea.