Gov. Tate Reeves has vetoed a bill meant to help Mississippi cities and counties still recovering from January’s winter storm, setting off a dispute with legislative leaders over how the bill was changed and how much storm-hit communities should have had to pay back.
Senate Bill 2632 would have created a state-funded emergency loan program for local governments waiting on FEMA reimbursements tied to the storm. Reeves vetoed the measure Monday, arguing the version delivered to his desk was materially different from the bill approved by both chambers.
In his veto message, Reeves said his staff negotiated a 1% monthly interest rate with legislative leaders, not the 1% annual rate in the bill he was asked to sign.
Reeves also argued the bill presented to him on March 17 had already been changed to remove the word “monthly” before either chamber formally agreed to that change later the same day. He called that sequence unconstitutional and suggested it may have involved criminal conduct.
But Senate records show Reeves’ timeline is wrong. Sen. Tyler McCaughn made the motion to remove the word “monthly,” on March 13, days before the bill was transmitted to Reeves.
On the Senate floor Tuesday morning, Lt. Gov Delbert Hosemann called Reeves’ message inaccurate and criticized the governor’s rhetoric.
“Attacking and accusing a Senate staffer of committing a criminal act in a veto message is malicious, unnecessary, and false,” Hosemann said.
McCaughn also defended the change to the loan bill, arguing charging local governments significant interest after a disaster makes no sense.
“12% is like kicking somebody when they're down,” McCaughn said. “People that had other problems where they were freezing to death in their homes. I don't get it. I really don't.”
Reeves did not back away from the process argument Tuesday. In a statement, Deputy Chief of Staff Cory Custer, said Reeves will sign the bill "if If the House and Senate send the Governor the exact same bill 174 members had the opportunity to vote on and passed"
Lawmakers are considering a separate path: attempting to override the veto. That would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate.
