I am pretty sure UNL and I have been using "final business" to refer to the period during and after a final vote on any bill, not strictly the period before elections that you call "final business" because with respect, you seem to be the only person who imports RL House practices into Atlasia wholesale in this way. We can certainly pick a different phrase to refer to it.
If you guys are going to limit the Governor's 'veto-to-referendum' power to the final business period, which is the final 36 hours before the General election, then you only need to specify one timing for such a referendum, as it would always be initiated within a week of the General. So you could do "next election" or "next but one" but you only need to specify one timing. If you instead mean the Governor's power exists during a bill's final vote, then that should be worded in a way that does not invoke 'final business' and thus the SOAP-designated time period.
But we are putting the cart before the horse here, because Article I and Article IX contradict each other. Article I tells me the Governor's power to referendum things is very limited, while Article IX tells me it is absolute and unoverrideable. Which is it?
Under the unamended Constitution, Artlcle IX said basically the same thing and Article I governed when, exactly, the Governor would veto things and how the LGC could override it. I don't see that this amendment changes that. III still talks about when and how veto power can be exercised.
I might put the struck-out text in IX.2.c back to make it clearer but this is a vast correction on UNL's original text where the Governor lost their veto powers completely in Article I while maintaining them in Article IX.
It's not something that I call final business, in fact it wasn't even my creation, it was a Philly Plan relic that I ended up leaving in place and is in fact actually codified procedure in our SOAP.
Section 4: Final Business
A. The General Court shall be dissolved at the start of the general elections.
B. The "Final Business" period of the General Court shall commence 36 hours prior to dissolution of the General Court session and shall end at dissolution.
i. At the start of Final Business, the Speaker shall declare in all pending legislative threads that Final Business has commenced and the session is nearing its end.
a. At this time, the Speaker must no longer open new legislative threads.
b. At this time, the General Court shall not consider new amendment proposals or votes.
ii. All legislation on the floor of the General Court shall go to a final vote at the start of the final business period, unless either the sponsor of the legislation or an absolute majority of the General Court voices an objection to the vote. Such a vote shall close no later than the time of dissolution. Any legislation left incomplete at the end of a session shall be carried over to the next session.
If you look through my tenure as PPT of the Senate, where no such procedure like this exists, you will not find the 'final business' terminology being used by me.
The contradiction in Article IX comes not with the text you have proposed to strike but with the "at personal discretion" at the end of IX.2.c. You're right that under the current enacted version, Article I specifies veto limitations not reiterated by Article IX, but IX.2.c is appropriately punctuated to only apply the "at personal discretion" to the referendum power. Thus under current law, the Governor's veto is overideable but their power to send something to referendum is absolute. If your intention is to turn it into a limited power, you could word it like this:
c.) The Governor , in lieu of a declaration in favor or in opposition, or a redraft, may instead defer any passed legislation to the judgment of the people of Lincoln at personal discretion as specified in the prior articles.
