Is George W. Bush a "Weak" Governor?
Some of George W. Bush's critics, particularly Orrin Hatch, disparage him
because he occupies a "constitutionally weak governorship." What makes a
governorship strong or weak? Should it reflect poorly on Bush if he is a "weak"
governor?
State constitutions grant governors a variety of powers--among them the
power to veto bills, appoint officials, and submit a budget to the legislature.
A constitutionally strong governor, such as New York's, can both veto bills and
apply a line-item veto to portions of measures he disfavors. A strong governor
also appoints most of the members of his Cabinet and can serve multiple
terms.
Constitutionally weak governors appoint few top officials. In many states,
the voters elect the attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, etc. This
makes the officials accountable to the electorate, not the governor, and
diffuses his power. Weak governors also face limits of one or two terms, making
them automatic lame ducks: They tend to govern less independently and exercise
less clout with legislatures than strong governors, who, because they can
repeatedly succeed themselves, amass more and more political power.
By most of these criteria, Gov. Bush is a weak governor. Voters elect the
Texas attorney general, comptroller, general land commissioner, and state
treasurer. Most agencies in Texas are run by commissions or boards whose
members outlast the governor who appointed them. The lieutenant governor runs
separately from the Texas governor and can belong to a different political
party. The Texas governor is not subject to term limits, however.
The job of lieutenant governor of Texas is thought by some to be a more
powerful but less glamorous job than that of governor. The lieutenant governor
presides over the Senate, appoints the Senate's committees and committee
chairs, controls the flow of bills to the floor, and co-chairs the powerful
Legislative Budget Board. (The current lieutenant governor of Texas is a
Republican.) The Texas governor can submit a budget to the legislature (he
doesn't have to), but his recommendations are usually discarded. The Texas
governor can't grant clemency to a death-row prisoner, although he can grant a
30-day reprieve until a state board reviews the prisoner's plea.
The Texas governor can veto bills and make line-item vetoes on
appropriations bills. He can also call special legislative sessions, something
Bush has never done. But a governor's clout doesn't rest only in institutional
trappings. Despite the limitations of his office, Bush is still the most
powerful politician in Texas. Personal charisma, a hefty electoral mandate, and
the cooperation of the legislature can augment the power of any governor. Bush
has all three, and he has used them to persuade the legislature to enact
incremental portions of his agenda on issues such as education, welfare, and
taxes. Add the likelihood of a major-party presidential nomination to the list,
and you have a governor who wields a sizable amount of power, even if it can't
be found in the state constitution.
Next question?
Explainer thanks Thad Beyle, professor of political science at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
