Final answer:
State governors' possession of the 'Vanna White' and 'Frankenstein' vetoes is controversial due to its potential to refine or alter legislation before it becomes law, which could benefit state residents with more streamlined laws but might also threaten the checks and balances system.
Step-by-step explanation:
The discussion on whether a state governor should possess what is informally referred to as the "Vanna White" and "Frankenstein" vetoes is centered on the capacity of a governor to alter the intent of legislation before it becomes law. These vetoes are a form of item veto, allowing the governor to change specific parts of a bill without rejecting it entirely. It puts a significant amount of legislative power in the hands of the executive branch, and this has sparked much debate.
On one hand, proponents of these powers argue that they can be used to refine legislation, making it more efficient or equitable by removing unnecessary or problematic components. On the other hand, opponents contend that such vetoes can subvert the will of the legislature and destroy the system of checks and balances, potentially altering the intent of laws against the desires of elected representatives.
For state residents, the advantage might lie in a more streamlined or practical set of laws, provided that the governor uses these powers judiciously and in the public's interest. However, there is also the risk of these powers being used to further partisan ends or to concentrate too much power in the executive branch, which might not align with residents' expectations or the democratic process.