I believe they’re doing it again. The General Assembly is violating the state constitution before our very own eyes and they’re doing it by passing an unconstitutional budget. Not surprisingly, 84 members of Kentucky’s House voted for it. Here’s the key phrase, which actually describes the budget:

AN ACT relating to appropriations and revenue measures

You might be surprised to learn that the state constitution actually prohibits the comingling of appropriation measures and revenue measures. Here’s a key phrase that every lawmaker swears to support when he or she is sworn in:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose amendments thereto: Provided, No new matter shall be introduced, under color of amendment, which does not relate to raising revenue.

Emphasis mine. In layman’s terms, it means that bills to raise revenue can’t do anything else. They have to raise revenue only. That means, in translation, that a bill that spends state money may not also raise money, since a bill to raise money can’t also spend money. But the state constitution goes further:

No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred, shall be reenacted and published at length.

What does that mean? It actually, in part, restates the restriction I quoted earlier. Bills may not relate to more than one subject. Revenue is a subject. Appropriation is a subject. They may not comingle.

And yet, the state constitution makes this idea even more clear, but I won’t quote the whole section:

… The Governor shall have the power to disapprove any part or parts of appropriation bills embracing distinct items, and the part or parts disapproved shall not become a law unless reconsidered and passed, as in case of a bill.

Emphasis mine. Kentucky’s governor, like many governors, has the right to veto distinct portions of appropriation bills. This bill, as stated by the general assembly, relates to raising revenue. So it’s either unconstitutional or the title of the bill is wrong.

You’d think Harry Moberly would have been more careful in crafting this budget.

I wrote on this subject for the Bluegrass Institute a few years ago.