Whatever comes in March of the Minnesota Supreme Court case over the limits of the governor’s unallotment authority, it probably will be good.

Minnesota’s ability to craft state budgets is hampered because the executive branch holds too much power in the negotiations. It is like playing cards with a player who gets an automatic trump each time.

The Minnesota governor gets unallotment and line-item veto. With line-item veto, he can strip legislation written into parts of bills. He cancels the spending before it is appropriated.

Unallotment lets a governor cancel spending after it is appropriated. It is intended to help a governor avoid red ink, but the court case charges Gov. Tim Pawlently is abusing the power.

He did use it to correct a lousy budget situation last year. But consider that the situation occurred in part because of the imbalance of power. Instead of blaming each side, let’s fix the system of checks and balances.

In states where the governor doesn’t have line-item veto, or even greater restrictions on it, it seems compromise is reached more swiftly. Yes, there is brinksmanship, but the balance of power is weighted more evenly. Lawmakers find middle ground because they have to.

Minnesota remains the only state with unallotment. It seems any governor can claim the emergency reasons necessary to use the power. It’s too strong.

And line-item veto, while sounding good in conversation, usually ends up being a political tool to strip out the compromises so necessary to democracy. It just seems too autocratic.

The case on unallotment will be heard March 15. Either the power gets affirmed, rescinded or ends up modified by semantics. All three choices likely would be an improvement over the present situation because there would be clarity at last.

As for line-item veto, some Minnesota legislators would like to see that gubernatorial power revoked, too. Just don’t count on that to happen under the current Minnesota executive. Such a bill would be vetoed the old-fashioned way.