Eugene Volokh notes that this question of law has come up once before in Texas:
Twice.
In 1916, James Ferguson was indicted for vetoing state funding to the University of Texas due to his objections to certain faculty members. When his demand for their termination went unmet, he vetoed almost all funding for the university. Ferguson resigned the day before he was to be impeached. Interestingly, regents and faculty at UT were calling for an investigation of Ferguson over misappropriation of funding and shady campaign contributions at the time.
I can wait for the trial to determine if Perry is actually guilty, but does everyone else see what is omitted in adaher’s interpretation here?
I’m admittedly slow with the law, but ISTM you are drawing a false equivalence. The Perry case is not about threatening a veto over this or that language in proposed legislation.
But I’ll have to think about it. I don’t view the dems as a bunch of saints who are above dirty political games. But, of course, Perry neither.
I disagree. The crime is not that he used a veto to cancel funding for a department that might have embarrassed him. The crime was threatening the livelihoods of 20 people unless an individual, an elected official whose lawful investigations might have embarrassed him, did Perry’s bidding, and then carrying out the threat.
It’s a bit like when a homeowner shoots a fleeing burglar. The crime isn’t using a gun to kill the burglar. The crime is killing a person who is not a a threat to life or limb. (Of course, it’s legal in Texas to shoot a burglar/robber in the back.)
It may not get to trial. I would imagine the Perry defense team would seek to quash the indictment.
A trial is about proving facts. Perry, at this point in his defense, can say, “OK, let’s assume I agree that I did every single act you allege I did. Those actions don’t constitute a crime.” That’s a determination to be made by a court before a trial.
Count II of the indictment is precisely and exactly about threatening a veto to withhold funding to force someone to resign, just as the cited Hanson case was. It’s not clear to me how you can reconcile the Hanson result with Count II of the Perry indictment.
Judge Hanson intentionally threatened to terminate the county’s funding of the salaries of a deputy district clerk and an assistant district attorney in an attempt to coerce the district judge into firing the county auditor and the county attorney into revoking a misdemeanant’s probation.
I must admit, I’m still not really following how conservatives believe that the IRS scrutiny of conservative political groups is a scandal, but threatening to veto funding for an ethics agency is not a scandal. If vetoes are legal, are not audits also legal?
even if you were to assume that the democrats were “floodin the country with illegal immigrants,” I don’t see how that helps them win elections. Illegal immigrants don’t vote, and I doubt they contribute much to political races.
Though his ‘argument’ was with the head of a department I do find it odd that he vetoed the specific department that deals with corruption. Wouldn’t it have been better to attack her specifically?
I don’t think there is any dispute he wanted to get rid of the department that investigated corruption, and was using the issue of the DA’s DUI as political cover. In my view, there should be a hefty political price to pay for such conduct. I can’t wrap my arms around a “criminal” label for it, though.
As a former criminal defense attorney, we would often see obnoxious behavior charged as a crime. We would have to say, “that’s obnoxious behavior, but that’s not a crime.”
I acknowledge it’s not black and white. For example, if Perry threatened to veto the funding for an environmental agency unless they stopped an investigation into practices of a company that gave him a lot of money, I would be comfortable with an indictment.
So, the DA was sued by a Travis County citizen for removal by petition and trial. The judge (from San Antonio) hearing the petition denied the writ. The legal process for removal was followed and Lehmberg retained her job. But since there is no double jeopardy in civil cases, and Rick Perry feels that DA Lehmberg is unfit for office, the remedy provided him as a resident of Travis County is petition and removal. He well could have win on the merits as several have pointed out in this thread.
Why didn’t he try this route for removal? Because he would not be the one to appoint a replacement. So instead he’s channeling Chris Christie and using a sledgehammer to swat that annoying Public Integrity fly.
Perry isn’t trying to get rid of the ethics agency, he’s trying to remove an unethical head of that agency. Looking at it cynically, he wants to appoint his own guy in her stead. But he’s not trying to just get rid of it.
And again, courts have recognized again and again that the power of the purse is near absolute. No one is owed government funding. The governor’s veto power is derived from the same source as the legislature’s spending power. If the legislature can legally deny funds to an agency, then a governor can also veto such funds, and for any reason.
There are other executive actions that can bring about abuse of power allegations. For example, firing whistleblowers, ordering audits on political enemies, spying on political enemies, etc. But an open veto threat is simply the use of the basic political process.
I’d add that we’ve seen a more concrete example of the kind of corruption being alleged against Perry: Obama fired an IG for causing him trouble when he found a legitimate case of wrongdoing. No charges were brought against the President because IGs serve at his pleasure. Likewise, agencies receive funding at the pleasure of the legislature and with the signature of the governor(unless overriden by said legislature). A governor can veto funding for any reason he wants.
I would hope that Romney or Rubio wouldn’t have to have Ron Paul explain their budget plan to them. Perry is not a threat because he makes GWB look like Einstein.