Virginia House Clerk Rejects Three of Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s Vetoes

The clerk of Virginia’s House of Delegates on Wednesday night rejected three of Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s recent vetoes in the state’s revised two-year budget.

Acting within the clerk’s purview as Keeper of the Rolls, Paul Nardo published a letter on the Virginia Legislative Information System that he would not formally publish the vetoes because they are unconstitutional under Virginia’s constitution.

The rejections blocked Youngkin’s vetoes of measures the legislature approved to expand access to weight-loss drugs in the state’s Medicaid program, to provide additional state and federal Medicaid reimbursements to nursing homes to bolster staff growth efforts, and to stop the state from issuing a contract to manage state employee health benefits on a contingency basis.

In explaining he would not publish the vetoes, Nardo said that Youngkin had attempted to veto the provisions without also vetoing the budget appropriation that contained it.

“Accordingly, I am duty-bound to not publish them,” he wrote as he cited constitutional law.

Del. Rodney Willett, D-Henrico, who had carried the budget amendment for the weight-loss drug coverage, said Thursday he’s pleased the veto was rejected because the legislature had agreed for it to be appropriated. He also emphasized how the drugs can “save lives.”

Willett’s proposal stemmed from a recommendation by the rural health committee he chaired last year, which had toured the state to explore health disparities and solutions. Obesity has been a key contributing factor to health disparities — sometimes a result of other preexisting health conditions or a precursor to them, and sometimes being a side effect of living in areas with limited access to healthy foods and health care facilities. Weight-loss drugs can help people better manage their overall health, and prevent incurring additional health issues that could inflate  Medicaid costs down the line.

“It’s one of those win-wins,” Willett said in a call. “Because you’re going to save lives by getting people on that drug, but then also save money for the state.”

Virginia’s Supreme Court has previously defined an item in an appropriation bill, like the state budget, for constitutional purposes, as an “indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose which may be eliminated from the bill without affecting the enactment’s other purposes or provisions.”

Given that the vetoes were not recognized by Nardo, Willett thinks those appropriations should be implemented.

Youngkin disagrees with that stance and plans for the executive branch to operate as if the vetoes stand, he told press at an unrelated bill signing on Thursday.

Political analyst Stephen Farnsworth believes the dispute could “end up in the courts, like just about everything these days.”

*This is a developing story and will be updated.

by Charlotte Rene Woods, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.