Gov. Kim Reynolds signed bills for the final time on June 2, polishing off her ninth legislative session as governor with by far her largest number of vetoes in a year.
Reynolds had used her veto power on 18 occasions in her first eight years. She rejected 11 bills or portions of bills on June 2.
The comments in her veto letters don’t betray whether this was a coincidence or if comity was less important to somebody retiring from office in seven months. Her two most recent predecessors, Republican Terry Branstad and Democrat Chet Culver, wielded the veto pen far more liberally, although party of control of the Legislature was divided for most of Branstad’s terms.
Reynolds’ decisions this year were prudent on the merits. They were also in keeping with the philosophy uniting the less-frequent vetoes from earlier years: reticence to change the law too drastically in some circumstances.
Reynolds snuffs out some sneaky inclusions
Most of the time, Iowa governors can only approve or disapprove entire bills. The only exception is bills that directly spend money for some purpose from the state treasury; on those, the governor can line-item veto select provisions while leaving the rest of the bill intact.
Reynolds called out seven distinct portions of spending bills this year. Three were in the annual “standings” bill. That measure has a long history of being introduced and passed in a matter of hours without meaningful public input when bleary-eyed lawmakers are desperate to go home. And it has a deserved reputation as a home for ideas that couldn’t make it through the legislative process on their own but have a chance in a convoluted mashup bill.
In House File 2800:
In other appropriations bills, Reynolds deleted bits of language that she said would have thwarted IT upgrades in the executive branch and unsettled programs that provide mental health treatment and combat drug abuse.
And she, rightly, called out one plan to give school districts $500,000 for email security in surprisingly stark terms: The provision “constitutes a clear and unmistakable earmark ― drafted, designed, and lobbied for by a specific information technology and cybersecurity firm,” she wrote. “The provision allocates one-time state funding to incentivize school districts to subscribe to ongoing cybersecurity services. What it does not disclose is the financial commitment that follows: once a district subscribes, it assumes recurring annual costs. … In effect, this earmark uses a modest sum of taxpayer dollars as an inducement to lock Iowa school districts into long-term vendor relationships.”
Vetoes aid students, local control, state universities
Reynolds vetoed a pair of bills dealing with students who take some community college courses while still enrolled in high school. Senate File 2299, which passed with significant bipartisan support, would have allowed school districts to demand families reimburse them if a student failed or withdrew from a college.
Reynolds, commendably, argued that this could discourage families who might benefit the most from concurrent enrollment from taking the option because of the financial risk. It’s a stance in keeping with Reynolds’ outlook on ‘school choice,’ that cost should not restrict options for families.
Another vetoed bill would have been too prescriptive, Reynolds said, about whether such concurrent-enrollment classes from community colleges are always taught in person.
The governor delivered a rare victory for local control by vetoing House File 2667, to set up a statewide urban design and specifications board. She said no to an earlier deadline for the governor’s office to submit ideas for bills. And she rejected a bid to require public university foundations to invest some endowment money into state innovation funds, writing that “recent concerns raised by university stakeholders also demonstrate the uncertainty that may result from requiring specific investment allocations through statute.”
How Kim Reynolds used the veto power in the past
These actions might not be long remembered, especially compared with Reynolds’ most famous veto, of a 2025 bill to restrict eminent domain use for Summit Carbon Solutions’ carbon dioxide pipeline plans. That measure was only of one three times (with some gray area on classifications) that Reynolds rejected a bill purely on policy differences. The other two involved drugs ― one bill to legalize prescriptions for the substance in “magic mushrooms,” and another that would have revised Iowa’s medical cannabidiol program.
Other vetoes rejected bills where significant drafting errors had become apparent, where Reynolds said she agreed with the policy but not the mechanism, and instances where Reynolds wanted to preserve more flexibility than what lawmakers approved. Finally, early in her tenure, Reynolds vetoed provisions after negotiating compromises, most memorably with Attorney General Tom Miller after the Legislature tried to bar him from suing President Donald Trump without permission.
The members of the editorial board aren’t getting carried away here. We would have very much preferred that Reynolds veto a few (dozen) more bills over the years. But she and her office served Iowans well with the careful work to tidy up the 2026 legislative session, and they should get credit for that.
Lucas Grundmeier, on behalf of the Register’s editorial board
This editorial is the opinion of the Des Moines Register’s editorial board: Rachel Stassen-Berger, executive editor; Lucas Grundmeier, opinion editor; and Richard Doak and Rox Laird, editorial board members.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Kim Reynolds shows good judgment in a final flurry of vetoes | Opinion
Reporting by The Register’s editorial, Des Moines Register / Des Moines Register
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By The Register's editorial, Des Moines Register | USA TODAY Network
