What role does the executive branch have in the preparation of the budget?

The Governor's Executive Budget preparation begins in the spring of even-numbered years. The Budget Division requests State agencies to prepare and submit budget requests on or before September 1. The Budget Director reviews past budgets, examines requests and meets with agency heads through December to establish budget recommendations that will be acceptable to the Governor. Agencies are required to estimate their needs three and one-half years ahead of the end of the biennial cycle period. The Budget Director may also establish agency guidelines based on revenue limitations and/or the Governor’s priorities or directives for the upcoming biennium.  

To determine how much revenue will be available for the biennial budget cycle, the Budget Division and state agencies use the official forecast of future state General Fund revenues. The forecast is provided by the State’s Economic Forum (a panel of five economic and taxation experts from the private sector). All agencies of the state including the Governor and Nevada Legislature are required to use the Forum’s forecast, which is provided shortly before the beginning of a new legislative session and again towards the end of the session.

Preliminary budgets for agencies are determined and then approved by the Governor. The Governor's Executive Budget is a public document but remains confidential until it is submitted to the Legislature and is presented during the Governor’s State of the State address. Upon legislative review (which includes revisions) and final approval, the biennial budget is presented to the Governor for signature. It is now referred to as the Legislatively Approved Budget and implementation is the responsibility of the executive branch.

Legislatures are responsible for enacting laws and appropriating funds. But what does “appropriating funds” mean? It is the action taken by the legislature to authorize the expenditure of a designated amount of public funds for a specific purpose.

• By definition, “appropriating funds” appears to be straightforward. In reality, the appropriation process is not quite so clear cut. Both legislative and executive branches play significant roles in budgeting.
• Executive branch agencies provide budgetary information to the governor, who then develops a proposed budget and submits it to the legislature.
• The legislature reviews and adjusts the governor’s proposed budget until it is in a form that is acceptable to the legislature, and the budget is passed.
• The enacted budget is returned to the governor for his or her consideration.
• Governors may veto the enacted budget in its entirety. In most states, governors also have the option to veto only portions (items) of the bill.
• If any gubernatorial vetoes occur, the budget is returned to the legislature with the governor’s objections.
• The legislature can override gubernatorial vetoes, thereby enacting the vetoed bill (or portions thereof) into law over the governor’s objections.

In addition, most states operate under balanced budget requirements. Questions frequently arise over who is responsible for maintaining the balanced budget and what actions can be taken to do so.

Federal funds also can trigger state legislative-executive conflict over who controls these funds.

Resources

General:

• Connecticut: Attorney General’s Opinion, response to Representative Edward C. Krawiecki, Jr.’s question "whether the Governor may act, through executive order, to appropriate and expend state monies by authorizing the continuation of government operations," November 1991
• Federal: Congressional Research Service, Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, June 2008 
• Federal: Congressional Research Service, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, November 2016
• Georgia: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, The Budget Process, 2021
• Georgia: Office of the Attorney General, Unofficial Opinion 2000-2, Feb. 11, 2000
• Indiana: State Budget Agency, The Budget Process, 2021
• Kentucky: Legislative Research Commission: Budget Process
• Michigan: Michigan House Fiscal Agency, A Legislator’s Guide to Michigan’s Budget Process, January 2019
• Minnesota: Senate Counsel, Research and Fiscal Policy Office, Legislative History of Unallotment Power, June 2009
• Minnesota: Minnesota House Research Department, The State Budget Process, July 2016
• Minnesota: Minnesota House Research Department, Unallotment—Executive Branch Power to Reduce Spending to Avoid a Deficit, March 2008
• Minnesota: Minnesota Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy, Statutory Appropriations Guidelines, December 2002
• Mississippi: Attorney General’s Opinion, “Authority to Spend Funds After June 30, 2009 ,” June 2009
• Montana: Legislative Fiscal Division, Understanding State Finances & the Budgeting Process, 2019
• NCSL: Budget Procedures
• NCSL: General Overview of Legislative vs. Executive Appropriations Issues, August 2009
• NCSL: Executive Authority to Cut the Enacted Budget, September 2008
• Nebraska: Nebraska Legislature, The Budget Process
• Texas: Senate Research Center, Budget 101, January 2007
• Washington: Office of Financial Management, A Guide to the Washington State Budget Process, July 2019
• Washington: Attorney General’s Opinion AGLO 49-51 No. 268, “Control of Appropriations by the Legislature,” May 1950
• Washington: Attorney General’s Opinion AGO 1991 No. 21 - Jun 11 1991 Can a Governor, without statutory authority, create obligations and responsibilities having the force and effect of law, 1991
• Wisconsin: Wisconsin Legislative Council, Wisconsin Legislator Briefing Book, 2017-18, “Chapter 4 - Budget Process”
• Wyoming: Wyoming Legislative Service Office, Constitutionally Permissible Content of the General Appropriations Bill, Jan. 14, 2016

Transfer of Appropriations:

• Idaho: Attorney General’s Opinion, “(1) Non-Cognizable Funds Pursuant to I.C. § 67-3516; and (2) Transfer of Appropriations Between Departments,” February 28, 1992
• Illinois: County of Cook v. Ogilvie, 50 Ill. 2d 379, 280 N.E.2d 224 (1972) 
• Michigan: Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency Memorandum, Transfer of Enacted Appropriations, October 2009
• South Dakota: South Dakota Legislative Research Council, Issue Memorandum 98-06, “Transfer of Appropriations,” April 1998
• South Dakota: South Dakota Legislative Research Council, Issue Memorandum 98-14 “Constitutional Amendment B”, May 14 1998
• Washington: Attorney General’s Opinion AGO 53-55 No. 308, “Necessity of Appropriation Authorizing Transfer of Moneys in the OASI Contribution Fund,” September 1954

 
Federal Funds Appropriation:

• Minnesota: Minnesota House Fiscal Analysis Department, Legislative Review of State Agency Requests to Spend Federal Funds, October 2007
• NCSL: Legislative Appropriations Authority and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, February 2009
• New Mexico: New Mexico Legislative Council Service, Information Memorandum No. 202.148137, July 2003
• South Dakota: South Dakota Legislative Research Council, Issue Memorandum 97-13, “A History of Special Appropriations,” August 2000
• West Virginia: West Virginia Code, Article 11 Legislative Appropriation of Federal Funds

Case Law

• Arizona Law Review: Susan Schwem, “Forty-Seventh Legislature of the State of Arizona v. Napolitano: Appropriations of Authority,” Arizona Law Review, Vol. 40:179, 2007 
• Illinois: People ex rel. Kirk v. Lindberg, 59 Ill. 2d 38, 320 N.E.2d 17 (1974) 
• Michigan: House Speaker v. State Administrative Board, 441 Mich. 547; 495 NW2d 539 (1993) 
• Minnesota: Deanna Brayton, et al. vs. Tim Pawlenty, et al., 2009
  • Temporary restraining order preventing selected unallotments, December 2009
  • Amicus Brief by Minnesota House of Representatives
  • Supreme Court ruling, May 2010
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Bullock Mfg. Co. v. Babcock, 22 Neb. 33, 33 N.W. 709 (1887)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Dales v. Moore, 36 Neb. 579, 54 N.W. 866 (1893)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Norfolk Beet-Sugar Co. v. Moore, 50 Neb. 88, 69 N.W. 373 (1896)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Hibbard v. Cornell, 60 Neb. 276, 83 N.W. 72 (1900)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Ledwith v. Brian, 84 Neb. 30, 120 N.W. 916 (1909)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Ridgell v. Hall, 99 Neb. 89, 155 N.W. 228 (1915), affirmed on rehearing 99 Neb. 95, 156 N.W. 16 (1916), overruled in Rein v. Johnsen, 149 Neb. 67, 30 N.W.2d 548 (1947).
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Western Bridge & Construction Co. v. Marsh, 111 Neb. 185, 196 N.W. 130 (1923)
• Nebraska: Fischer v. Marsh, 113 Neb. 153, 202 N.W. 422 (1925)
• Nebraska: Power Oil Co. v. Cochran, 138 Neb. 827, 295 N.W. 805 (1941)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Johnson v. Marsh, 149 Neb. 1, 29 N.W.2d 799 (1947)
• Nebraska: Midwest Popcorn Co. v. Johnson, 152 Neb. 867, 43 N.W.2d 174 (1950)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Meyer v. Duxbury, 183 Neb. 302, 160 N.W.2d 88 (1968)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Meyer v. Steen, 183 Neb. 297, 160 N.W.2d 164 (1968)
• Nebraska: State ex rel. Meyer v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 185 Neb. 490, 176 N.W.2d 920 (1970)
• Nebraska: Stahmer v. State, 192 Neb. 63, 218 N.W.2d 893 (1974)
  • (For brief description of each case, go to the following link for Annotated Nebraska Constitution Article III, Section 22) 
• Virginia: Virginia Division of Legislative Services, Virginia Legislative Issue Brief No. 15, “Binding the Hands of Future Legislators: The Nebraska v. Moore Case,“ July 1996

 
Federal Funds Appropriation
South Carolina: Casey Edwards and Justin Williams v. State of South Carolina, 2009

• Order
• Motion for leave to file amicus brief

Receiving Information or Recommending Additions

If you have any questions, please contact Brenda Erickson.  Also, please contact Brenda if you would like to recommend legislative resources or case law that may enhance the Separation of Powers website.

Which branch is responsible for preparing the budget?

Which executive is responsible for budgeting and planning?

What is the role of the President in presenting the budget?