## Facts

- The South Carolina General Assembly enacted the fiscal year 2010–2011 appropriations bill, including appropriations to the State Budget and Control Board.
- The appropriations bill listed for each line: (1) an amount to be drawn from the General Fund and (2) a total appropriation amount reflecting combined sources, including non–General Fund funds.
- The bill’s format did not separately state the precise non–General Fund amount for each line item; it could be calculated by subtracting the General Fund figure from the total.
- The Governor issued “Veto 52,” purporting to veto the General Fund amounts appropriated to the Board while leaving intact the non–General Fund portions for the same expenditures.
- The Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville filed an original-jurisdiction action in the South Carolina Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment that Veto 52 violated the state constitution’s item-veto provision.
- The petitioner also challenged certain fund transfers made under budget provisos to address effects of the veto, but that issue was contingent on the veto’s validity.

## Issues

1. Whether the Governor’s attempt to veto only the General Fund component of appropriations to the State Budget and Control Board was a constitutional “item” veto under S.C. Const. art. IV, § 21.
2. Whether the multi-column budget format (General Fund vs. total appropriation) creates separate vetoable “items” for each funding source within a single appropriation purpose.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court held Veto 52 unconstitutional and entered judgment for the petitioner.
- The court concluded the Governor did not veto discrete appropriation “items,” but instead vetoed only part of unified appropriation items by targeting one funding source.
- Because the veto was invalid, the court did not reach the separate challenge to the Board’s use of budget provisos and related fund transfers.

## Legal Principles

- An appropriation “item” is a specific, individual sum of money dedicated to a distinct purpose.
- The Governor’s item-veto power under S.C. Const. art. IV, § 21 permits veto of entire appropriation items, not partial vetoes that alter an item’s substance or funding structure.
- A budget’s multi-column presentation reflects accounting for funding sources and does not split a single appropriation for a defined purpose into multiple vetoable items.
- A veto that removes only one component of an appropriation item effectively amends the appropriations act, which is a legislative function inconsistent with separation of powers.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the Governor’s veto because vetoing only the General Fund portion of appropriations to the Board was a partial veto of unified appropriation items, exceeding the constitutional limits of the item-veto authority.


Jackson v. Sanford, 731 S.E.2d 722 (S.C. 2011)