By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Aid for Mississippi survivors of Winter Storm Fern is uncertain after Governor Tate Reeves vetoed Senate Bill 2632, which would have provided loans to local governments for storm damage. The governor cited an unconstitutional change to the bill’s interest rate language, accusing legislative staff of altering the term from “monthly” to “annually” after it had been presented to him. Lt. Governor Delbert Hosemann and Senator Tyler McCaughn countered that the change was intentional and unanimous to prevent a burdensome 12% interest rate, asserting the governor’s accusations were inaccurate and malicious. The Legislature may attempt to override the veto, with proponents emphasizing their commitment to supporting storm-affected communities.
Read the original article here
Mississippi’s Governor Tate Reeves has vetoed Senate Bill 2632, a bill intended to provide financial assistance through loans to local governments grappling with the aftermath of Winter Storm Fern. The controversy surrounding this veto stems from the governor’s accusations of a “possibly criminal” act involving the alteration of the bill’s language after it had already received legislative approval. At the heart of the dispute is the interest rate for these recovery loans.
Initially, Senate Bill 2632 stipulated that loans would carry a 1% interest rate charged “monthly.” This detail, when calculated over a year, would result in a significantly higher annual interest rate. However, a move was made in the House of Representatives to amend the bill, specifically to remove the word “monthly” from the interest rate stipulation. This change effectively meant that the interest rate would be 1% annually, a substantial reduction from the monthly compounding originally proposed.
Governor Reeves contends that this alteration was a clandestine manipulation of the bill’s language after it had been passed and sent to his desk for signature, an act he deems potentially illegal. He has accused specific individuals, including Senator Hob Bryan and the clerk, of conspiring to change the bill’s wording. The governor appears to believe that Senator Bryan’s later motion regarding a different bill was, in fact, an attempt to modify Senate Bill 2632, leading to his strong reaction and the veto.
The timeline of events suggests a potential misunderstanding or misinterpretation on the governor’s part regarding when the amendment actually occurred. The Senate adopted the conference report on SB 2362, and shortly thereafter, a motion was made and agreed upon in the Senate to remove the word “monthly” from the bill, changing the interest to 1% annually. This amendment was made before the bill was even signed by the State House Speaker and Lieutenant Governor and subsequently sent to the Governor. The governor’s accusation of manipulation after the bill was voted on appears to be factually incorrect according to the documented sequence of legislative actions.
Essentially, the governor is expressing outrage that the legislative body sought to make the storm recovery loans more affordable for victims by reducing the interest rate from a potentially high monthly compounded rate to a much lower annual rate. His veto, therefore, seems to stem from his belief that the bill was tampered with illicitly, rather than from an objection to the more favorable interest rate itself. Some observers have noted the irony of the governor’s stance, suggesting he is upset that the bill, as amended, will not allow for a higher interest burden on those already struggling with storm damage.
The situation raises questions about legislative processes and the integrity of bill amendments. While the principle that language of an approved bill should not be altered after passage is a valid concern, the evidence suggests that the amendment to Senate Bill 2632 was made within the established legislative process and prior to its delivery to the governor. The governor’s strong language of “possibly criminal” act, therefore, appears to be a reaction based on a misapprehension of when the change was made.
This incident also highlights broader political dynamics, with some critics suggesting that the governor’s actions reflect a pattern of political maneuverings that can disproportionately affect those in need. The debate over the bill’s amendment and subsequent veto can be seen through the lens of differing political priorities and approaches to governance, particularly in a state that has historically faced significant socio-economic challenges. The focus on the financial burden placed upon storm victims, and the governor’s apparent opposition to a more lenient interest rate, has drawn considerable public attention and criticism.