VERMONT A HEMP STATE? NOT SO FAST

MONTPELIER - A bill that was poised to legalize the cultivation of
industrial hemp in Vermont is now the subject of a constitutional
dispute over whether the legislation can become law without the
governor's signature.

Gov. James Douglas, a critic of the hemp bill, has said the measure
flies in the face of federal statute and could ultimately complicate
marijuana eradication efforts in the state.

Despite his opposition, a Douglas spokesman said that the bill doesn't
rise to the level of a gubernatorial veto. And though he wasn't
willing to sign the bill himself, Douglas forwarded the legislation
last week to the Secretary of State for her to enact the bill into law
without his signature.

But Secretary of State Deb Markowitz said Tuesday that it's unclear
whether the Vermont Constitution requires a gubernatorial signature or
not. When the bill officially arrives at her office, Markowitz said,
she'll seek legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General to
make a ruling.

"It's not clear," Markowitz said. "(The governor) is making an
argument of interpretation that isn't obvious on the face of the
language in the Constitution."

At issue is the so-called "pocket veto," a constitutional provision
that allows a governor to squelch a bill simply by not signing it.

Gaye Symington, Speaker of the House, said Tuesday that it was her
understanding that all bills would have to be signed by Douglas in
order for them to become law.

But Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for the governor, said the pocket veto
does not apply to bills received by the governor after final
adjournment. Douglas received the hemp bill about 10 days ago, well
after the Legislature adjourned.

"Our view, based on extensive legal research, is that there's
precedent for this action," Gibbs said Tuesday. "And it is well within
the options proscribed by the state's Constitution."

That's not the analysis of Don Milne, clerk for the Vermont
House.

"It's been my understanding that once we adjourn and are not coming
back, that he has to sign it or if he doesn't sign it, it's dead,"
Milne said.

David Gibson, clerk of the Senate, said he concurs with
Milne.

"I don't agree with the interpretation of the governor's office of the
Constitution," Gibson said. "I think he either had to sign it to
approve it or it died. I know of no precedent that supports the
governor's position."

Emily Berquist, poised to assume the role of Chief of the Legislative
Council later this month, said the ruling will hinge on the
interpretation of Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
Other states with similarly worded pocket-veto provisions have
generally required a bill to have a governor's signature in order for
it to become law, Berquist said,

But Gibbs said there's a recent precedent for Douglas'
interpretation.

In 1994, under Gov. Howard Dean, the Legislature passed a bill
changing fish and game laws in the state. Dean didn't sign the bill,
according to Gibbs, but sent it to the Secretary of State who
proceeded to enact the bill into law.

"If the rationale being used by these folks is correct, it means Gov.
Dean S was also incorrect in his interpretation of what the
Constitution allows," Gibbs said. "That would also mean that various
changes to these fish and game laws would have been enforced for more
than a decade even though they are not a legitimate part of the law."

Peter Teachout, a professor at Vermont Law School and expert on the
Vermont Constitution, said the Section 11 language was added to the
Constitution in 1836 to preserve the power of the governor to either
return bills to the Legislature or indicate his approval of them.

"The whole purpose is to preserve the role and responsibility of the
governor," Teachout said.

If the governor chooses to indicate his approval of or "acquiescence"
to the bill by sending it to the Secretary of State rather than
signing it himself, Teachout suggested, the intent of the provision is
in no way undermined.

"If in this case he doesn't have any objections, and doesn't want to
exercise the right to interpose those objections, then it seems to me
that both the language and the underlying policy of the provision
would best be furthered by allowing the governor to indicate his
approval without a signature," Teachout said.

A call to Attorney General Bill Sorrell wasn't returned Tuesday. It
will fall to his office to resolve the dispute.

Gibbs said the controversy was "much ado about nothing," since federal
law banning hemp cultivation supercedes any state legislation saying
otherwise.

"It's a do-nothing bill that an out-of-the-mainstream majority that
controlled the House of Representatives decided to squander its time
on," Gibbs said. "The bill has literally no practical impact on life
in Vermont."

The hemp bill won nearly unanimous support in both the House and
Senate, where lawmakers praised the crop as a potential boon for the
state's agriculture sector.

Amy Shollenberger, head of Rural Vermont, an organization that lobbied
for the bill, said she hopes the dispute won't imperil the bill.

"I think the governor's intention is clear, that he would like the
bill to become a law," Shollenberger said. "We're dismayed by the
controversy, and we're just hoping he's right about his ability to let
it become law without his signature."