Branstad's mental-hospital closures debated in court
Lawyers for Gov. Terry Branstad and his critics argued in court Thursday over whether he broke the law by using his line item veto authority to effectively shutter two state mental hospitals.
Branstad in July vetoed a bipartisan compromise plan that would have reversed his closure of the mental institution at Mount Pleasant and would have temporarily kept open a similar facility at Clarinda.
The main state workers’ union and 25 Democratic legislators sued Branstad, contending his veto of more than $6 million in spending broke a law requiring the state to operate four mental hospitals, including the two he closed. “If he wanted to amend the statute, there’s a way to change it through the legislative process,” plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Hedberg told Polk County District Judge Douglas Staskal Thursday.
Hedberg acknowledged Branstad has broad veto authority, but he argued that in this instance, the governor’s veto violated an established section of state law. “That is the case in a nutshell for us,” Hedberg said.
Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Thompson, representing the governor, countered that the spending bill clearly was the kind of measure that Branstad has the constitutional power to veto. That principle has been confirmed repeatedly by courts, he told the judge. “There are a lot of cases we cited – a lot of cases. You can pick your favorite,” Thompson said.
Branstad contends that the mental hospitals were outdated and inefficient, and that most of their services could be better provided by private agencies. Critics disagree, and they say he moved too quickly to shutter the state facilities before arranging sufficient replacement services for Iowans with severe mental illnesses.
RELATED:Ex-Clarinda patients sent to range of nursing homes
Thompson told the judge that the statute Hedberg cited is “less than clear” about the state’s duty to maintain four mental hospitals. In any case, he said, such a statute can’t trump the governor’s constitutional authority to veto spending bills.
Hedberg raised the possibility that under Thompson’s argument, the governor could theoretically do away with a whole branch of government by vetoing its annual appropriation. For example, Hedberg said, the governor could get rid of the entire court system that way.
The judge asked Thompson whether he believed Hedberg’s hypothetical situation had merit. If the governor was displeased with judges’ decisions, could he use his veto power to shut down the court system? Thompson called it “an extreme example.” But then he said, “Yes, I think that could happen. It’s crazy, but it’s possible.”
Judge: Branstad can be sued for mental-hospital closure
Thompson pointed out that if the governor tried to take such a bizarre step, legislators could override his veto with two-thirds of the votes in the House and Senate. They could have done the same thing with his veto of the mental hospital financing, but they didn’t, he said. It shouldn’t be the court’s job to overturn the governor’s veto if legislators couldn’t do it themselves, he added.
Branstad’s lawyers earlier asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the legislators and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees lacked grounds to sue. The judge disagreed, ruling last month that the lawsuit could proceed. However, he dismissed Department of Human Services Director Charles Palmer as a defendant, saying Palmer had no say in Branstad’s veto.
There will be no trial, because the two sides agree on the facts of the case. Staskal said Thursday that he would rule on the legal questions within 30 days. Whoever loses the case then could appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
It’s not clear what would happen if AFSCME and the Democratic legislators win, because the two mental hospitals have been closed, their patients have been transferred and their workers have been laid off.