Following the governor's anticipated veto, the next likely and predictable move would be that House and Senate Republicans would vote to override Cooper's veto. However, that only happens if all Republican members of the House and the Senate are on the floor for a vote.
[Ads /]
Cooper, a Democrat, only needs one Republican member in either chamber to break rank and join him in supporting a veto for SB20.
RELATED: Cooper calls out lawmakers ahead of abortion bill veto and override showdown
When asked whether the vote would make it to the House or Senate floor without all Republican members present, political analyst Mitch Kokai said that is a scenario that is highly unlikely to happen for several reasons.
"There's a desire on an issue of this much importance to ensure that everyone knows the votes are going to take place so that everyone can be there," said Kokai. "But it also gives the legislative leaders in both the House and the Senate some flexibility on when they schedule a vote."
Kokai said Republican leaders in both chambers will not schedule a vote if a caucus member has a prior engagement or will be unable to attend. And there is no date for when a veto override vote must be scheduled.
Below: Read the bill for yourself
"They could hold this veto override throughout the rest of the two-year legislative session if they wanted to," Kokai said.
[Ads /]
Secondly, with Cooper in need of only one Republican to flip, Kokai said he believes it is unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility if a Republican had a change of heart.
"The way that this bill was rolled out and the various provisions that are in it, the fact that Republicans had all of their members lined up behind this bill when it went through suggests to me that there should be a pretty high level of confidence that all the Republicans are going to show up and are going to vote for the override," Kokai said. However, Kokai added, "It certainly would be a major obstacle to reelection for any Republican who voted for this bill the first time and then decided not to vote for it because of a gubernatorial veto."