Monday, May 28, 2007

Should Governor Strickland Have Vetoed the Stripper Bill?

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an editorial criticizing Governor Strickland for allowing the stripper bill to become law without his signature. The editorial appeared in the Monday, May 28, 2007 edition of the Plain Dealer. Although Strickland said that he would have voted against the bill if he had been in the General Assembly, he wasn't going to veto it.

The PD feels otherwise. Jill of Writes Like She Talks agrees with the PD. She points out in one of her blog entries that Ohio will have to spend taxpayer dollars defending a bill in the Federal Courts that will most likely be struck down as unconstitutional. The issue of attorney fees isn't, by the way, a small matter. If a person brings a lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 because his or her civil rights have been violated, they are entitled to attorney fees if successful.

The counter-argument in favor of Strickland's veto would be that he needs to have some co-operation with the General Assembly and fighting over this bill, a fight that he probably won't win, is simply not worth it. It is very possible that Strickland and the General Assembly could be heading for some fights over potential Strickland line item vetoes in the state's budget bill. The question is whether such political capital, to use a term our President is fond of, should be used in this fashion.

One thing that Strickland has going for him is that voters, so far, approve of his performance in office. His popularity is going to go down over the next several months. If he is constantly seen as vetoing legislation passed by the General Assembly, especially if he is not upheld in that veto, he could be seen as weak and ineffectual.

We are interested in your opinion, please tell us what you think by leaving a comment on this entry.

Cross-posted at

No comments: