Opinion: Will lawmakers stand up to Gov. Stitt's vetoes?
Like a schoolyard bully, Gov. Kevin Stitt this week dared the Legislature to punch back.
He vetoed three common-sense bills that sailed through both chambers because … why? He could? He wanted to show legislators who's boss? He cares little about the plight of the least among us?
The governor, of course, offered "reasons" he rejected measures that would have expanded access to breast cancer screening, funded an OSBI liaison for cases involving missing or murdered Indigenous people, and extended briefly the timeline for renters facing eviction.
But all rang hollow. Consider his logic for rejecting House Bill 1389 that would have required health insurance cover breast ultrasounds for those at higher risk of breast cancer.
"While early detection and access to care are critical priorities," Stitt said, "this legislation imposes new and costly insurance mandates on private health plans that will ultimately raise insurance premiums for working families and small businesses."
Hmmm … so mandating coverage that could identify breast cancer earlier, reduce long-term treatment costs and save lives is a no-go for a governor who fears insurance rates will go up?
Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond took aim at Stitt's logic in an X post: "The next time you or a loved one is denied coverage for a mammogram, be sure to thank @GovStitt. He vetoed a bipartisan bill that would force insurance companies to cover this life-saving procedure. The health companies are celebrating – are you?"
HB 1389 was the work of Tulsa Democratic Rep. Melissa Provenzano, who recently was diagnosed with breast cancer, and Midwest City Republican Sen. Brenda Stanley. The House approved it 95-0; the Senate 34-11, though opposition came entirely from Freedumb Caucus types.
The other two measures – House Bill 1137 which would have funded a state liaison in cases involving missing or murdered Indigenous people, and Senate Bill 128 which would have given struggling renters five extra days to keep their homes or secure shelter – also commanded strong bipartisan support.
HB 1137, named Ida's Law in honor of a Cheyenne and Arapaho woman who disappeared in 2015, passed the House 83-0 and the Senate 42-1 – the one negative vote being Shawnee Sen. Shane Jett, a once-thoughtful, principled House member whose descent into the Tin Foil world still baffles.
Remarkably, Stitt issued his veto on National Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Awareness Day. Was he unaware? Politically tone deaf? Or was it another at Oklahoma's tribal nations with whom he's battled frequently over his seven years in office?
SB 128's votes were closest – 51-35 in the House and 26-19 in the Senate – as solons undoubtedly weighed the benefits to tenants against the costs to landlords.
If you're keeping score at home, that's 331 "yes" votes for these three measures and 69 "no" votes – 66 of which were cast by legislators, three by a governor whose "no" carries veto power.
Past Legislatures would have wasted little time overriding a governor who vetoed three broadly supported, public policy winners – if for no other reason as a reminder of their constitutional authority as a co-equal state government branch.
But it remains to be seen if these lawmakers have the chops to do so. After all, they recently punted on state Superintendent Ryan Walters' sketchy social studies standards, allowing them – including debunked election denialism – to take effect without so much as a public debate or vote.
It takes a two-thirds vote of each house to override a veto. A high bar, yes. But achievable given floor votes for both HB 1389 and HB 1137. The question is, do legislators have the courage to take on a lame-duck governor?
[Arnold Hamilton / The Journal Record]
