Every spring, when governors complete their review of legislation passed by their state assemblies, a certain type of political theater takes place. Press conferences are given to the signings. The fine print is given to the vetoes. Sometimes, the true beliefs of lawmakers regarding labor, employees, and the people the system is intended to safeguard are hidden in that fine print.
There was a lot for observers to read between the lines during the 2026 legislative season. Bills pertaining to labor safety, job security, and workforce conditions were either completely blocked, conditionally stalled, or quietly allowed to die without a signature ceremony in a number of states. Fiscal pressure, federal preemption, and redundancy concerns were some of the reasons given. However, a pattern begins to emerge when examining the veto letters that governors sent out this spring.
Governor Wes Moore of Maryland used five vetoes to end the session. One of them concerned House Bill 862, which mandated that freight trains operating within the state have a crew of at least two people. Although the Federal Railroad Administration had already made progress toward that standard on a national level, Moore’s office raised concerns about a possible conflict with federal preemption regulations as well as the possibility that the bill would cost Maryland up to $6 million a year if it were passed.
The Attorney General’s office deemed the bill’s conditional clause, which stated that it would only become operative if similar laws were passed in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, to be legally hazardous. Moore did not state that he was against two-person crews. The mechanism, he claimed, was defective. Depending on which side of the taxi door you are on, that distinction may or may not be significant.
It’s important to note that this type of veto, which focuses on a bill’s structure rather than its intent, has grown more frequent. Governors of all political persuasions have discovered that vetoing the “how” rather than the “what” provides political cover. By most accounts, Moore is a sincere advocate for rail safety. In Maryland, however, the result is the same for freight workers.
Governor Bob Ferguson of Washington State adopted a very different strategy. During the 2026 session, he concentrated on partial vetoes, or the surgical removal of particular provisions from larger budget bills, rather than using any full vetoes. Out of the 268 bills that were passed, there were seven partial vetoes. The majority of those focused on administrative issues, such as timelines that agencies couldn’t realistically meet, directives without matching resources, and funding that didn’t match program needs. Ferguson’s method seems to have been more technically oriented than philosophical. That self-control is noteworthy because it is uncommon.
In contrast, Colorado’s legislature addressed the issue of workplace safety oversight, but it never reached the governor’s desk. Business groups opposed a bill that would have given state regulators the authority to monitor workplace safety for the first time, and the legislature itself killed it in the Senate. That result may be more telling than any veto since it implies that in certain chambers, the task of shielding employees from vetoes is never even initiated.
Here, there is a more general question worth considering. How frequently do veto decisions represent sincere policy concerns, and how frequently do they represent political scheming disguised in legalese? In 2026, state budgets are getting tighter overall, and federal Medicaid funding is in jeopardy. The context is important. However, it’s also true that workforce bills, such as those pertaining to labor conditions, crew minimums, wages, and safety, frequently encounter resistance from organized industries before they ever make it to the governor’s desk. The most intense lobbying typically occurs by the time a bill is being vetoed.
To put it another way, reviewing the vetoes involves more than just reading what the governors have to say. It’s important to pay attention to what they did not say and the potential implications of their silence for the intended audience for these bills.
