## Facts

- The New Mexico Legislature enacted the General Appropriations Act of 1974 (HB 300), a comprehensive appropriations bill.
- The Governor exercised the partial (item) veto under N.M. Const. art. IV, § 22 to veto six portions of HB 300.
- Three vetoes struck language restricting how certain appropriated funds could be used while leaving the dollar amounts intact.
- One veto deleted language limiting which agencies were eligible for certain budget increases, effectively expanding eligibility.
- Two vetoes deleted language the Governor characterized as confusing or ambiguous, assertedly to clarify the Act’s operation.
- A state senator petitioned in the New Mexico Supreme Court for an original writ of mandamus to compel state finance officials to disregard the challenged vetoes and administer HB 300 as enacted by the Legislature.

## Issues

1. Whether a state senator had standing to pursue an original mandamus action challenging the Governor’s partial vetoes of an appropriations act.
2. Whether the Governor’s authority to veto “any part or parts, item or items” of an appropriations bill permits vetoing conditions or limiting language while leaving related appropriations intact.
3. Whether partial vetoes that expand or otherwise change the legal effect of appropriations impermissibly rewrite legislation in violation of separation of powers.

## Decision

- The court entertained the original mandamus proceeding and held the petitioner had standing given the public importance of the constitutional questions.
- The court held the item-veto is a negative power to disapprove separable items or parts, not a power to revise the Legislature’s fiscal policy choices.
- The court invalidated the Governor’s partial vetoes to the extent they altered the legislative plan by expanding or materially changing appropriations through selective deletion of limiting language.
- The court upheld the Governor’s partial vetoes to the extent they removed discrete, severable parts whose deletion did not change essential legislative policy.
- The court made the peremptory writ permanent as to invalid vetoes (ordering officials to treat them as nullities) and quashed relief as to vetoes deemed valid.

## Legal Principles

- In an appropriations bill, an “item” is a distinct, severable provision; the Governor may veto an item or separable part but may not use the veto to produce a different appropriation scheme than the Legislature enacted.
- The item-veto power does not permit deleting restrictions or conditions when doing so transforms the scope or effect of an appropriation and effectively enacts a new policy choice.
- A partial veto that broadens eligibility for funding by striking limiting language exceeds constitutional authority because it changes, rather than negates, the legislative decision.
- New Mexico standing in mandamus is flexible in cases presenting major public, constitutional, separation-of-powers disputes requiring prompt judicial resolution.

## Conclusion

The court allowed mandamus review and held that the Governor may veto only separable items or parts of an appropriations bill; vetoes that selectively remove limiting language to expand or materially alter appropriations are unconstitutional and must be treated as void, while truly severable deletions that do not change essential legislative policy may stand.


State ex rel. Sego v. Kirkpatrick, 524 P.2d 975 (N.M. 1974)