I feared the worst when Governor Terry Branstad waited until the Friday before Memorial Day weekend to sign the last 30 bills from the Iowa legislature’s 2016 session. Announcing vetoes of state funding late in the week has become a hallmark of Branstad’s leadership style. If he can dump the news just before a holiday weekend, so much the better.

Late on a Friday in July 2011, Branstad’s office released a list of item vetoes including $5 million earmarked for rebuilding Lake Delhi on the Maquoketa River and $10 million for the state’s River Enhancement Community Attraction and Tourism program.

Vetoes announced late on the Friday before Memorial Day 2012 included a $500,000 appropriation to the Iowa Food Bank Association.

On a Thursday afternoon in June 2013, Branstad cut some $144.5 million from the state budget, of which about $110 million would have shored up some pension funds. Those cuts also affected building projects at Iowa’s three state universities and several smaller appropriations.

After dinner on the last Friday of May 2014, Iowans learned Branstad had vetoed a $79.8 supplemental spending bill that would have provided more than $16 million in funding for water quality and conservation programs. For good measure, the governor cut another $41 million from an infrastructure bill allocating gaming revenues. Those cuts included another $4 million for the Resources Enhancement and Protection fund.

After 4 pm on the day before last year’s long July 4 weekend, Branstad’s office announced perhaps the most painful item vetoes of all. The largest cuts affected education funding: $55.7 million for K-12 school districts, $2.5 million for community colleges, nearly $2.9 million for the University of Iowa, $2.25 million for Iowa State University, and $1.1 million for the University of Northern Iowa. In the same batch of vetoes, Branstad rejected a compromise that would have kept two in-patient mental health facilities open and an expansion of child care assistance to low- and moderate-income families.

So as Memorial Day approached, along with the governor’s deadline for taking action on bills passed before the legislature adjourned at the end of April, I braced myself for the ax to fall on various worthwhile programs.

But last Friday afternoon’s news release from the governor’s office was a shocker. Branstad did not veto any spending approved for fiscal year 2017. Rather, he slipped “a few warnings” into his messages about the latest bill signings. Erin Murphy reported for the Quad-City Times on May 27,

For instance, Branstad expressed concern with the use of a one-time infusion of $15 million to fund the Department of Human Services.

“The budget I proposed in January 2016 funded ongoing expenses with ongoing revenue,” Branstad said in his transmission letter. “It is my hope to work with the Legislature next year to provide much-needed budget predictability and stability for Iowa taxpayers who make these programs possible.”

Branstad also sounded warnings in spots where he thinks the Legislature underfunded state agencies. He wrote that he thinks the Legislature failed to dedicate sufficient funding for the state’s utility bills, and he expressed hope that despite a status-quo budget, the judicial system will find a way to maintain drug courts.

Side note: Iowa lawmakers should have allocated extra funding to the judiciary to ensure that drug courts will continue to function. The Des Moines Register’s Grant Rodgers reported last year on the “uncertain future” for such courts, which steer some addicts toward treatment rather than incarceration. Unfortunately, spending on valuable public services never seems to be as high a priority for the legislature as tax breaks for business owners. But I digress.

Why didn’t Branstad veto any appropriations for fiscal year 2017?

Admittedly, lawmakers provided fewer easy targets. They didn’t roll last-minute compromises into a large supplemental spending bill, as had been done in previous years, nor did they fund environmental programs at record levels.

Still, I would expect a few token statements against overspending, just to show the governor’s staff read all the appropriations bills closely. I mean, Branstad vetoed more than two dozen line items in last year’s health and human services budget. He has vetoed funds targeted for refugee assistance on several occasions, most recently last July. Yet he left all funding in this year’s health and human services budget intact, even $300,000 to support the RefugeeRISE AmeriCorps program.

Plus, after claiming (unconvincingly) that last summer’s vetoes were essential to protect the “fiscal health of Iowa,” Branstad could have cited lower state revenue estimates released in March to justify more cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility.

So what accounts for the governor’s unexpected generosity? I have a few theories.

First, Branstad may have realized he needs to build more trust with lawmakers to accomplish anything significant during the remainder of his term. Since returning to the governor’s office in 2011, he has repeatedly used his item veto power–unlawfully in at least one instance–to cut Democratic priorities out of hard-fought compromises. Blocking the supplemental funding for education last summer further poisoned the well with statehouse Democrats. Partly for that reason, the governor’s water quality funding proposal was essentially dead on arrival this year.

Second, last year’s school funding vetoes are guaranteed to be among the top issues for Democratic Iowa House or Senate candidates this fall. In every district, Democrats can point to school program cuts directly attributable to Branstad’s veto, which Republicans declined to override. They governor may have decided against handing the political opposition more ammunition going into the general election campaign. Republicans are hoping to gain control of the state Senate and hold on to their House majority despite GOP retirements in several competitive districts. Republicans have controlled both chambers of the legislature for only two of the twenty-plus years Branstad has been governor (1997 and 1998).

Alternatively, Branstad may not have wanted to burden his chosen successor, Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds, with political fallout from more unpopular vetoes. I have long believed and remain convinced Branstad will not serve out his current term. I see him as likely to resign early not for health reasons, but because Reynolds will be better positioned for the GOP gubernatorial primary in 2018 if she can run as the incumbent. Branstad is already the longest-serving governor in U.S. history. He may step down soon after the 2016 general election or following the 2017 legislative session. Either way, Reynolds would be better off not having to answer for more vetoes of spending both parties agreed on.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.