Accounting standards represent the rules underlying the preparation of external financial statements. These rules are set by authoritative bodies, adhered to by accountants, referenced by auditors, and must be understood by both professional (e.g. institutional investors) and citizen financial statement users. Due process, defined as the policies and procedures that constrain administrative decision-making (Richardson, 2008), involves stakeholder participation in the standard-setting process. Stakeholder involvement in the due process of standard setting is integral to independent standard setting and is highly important as a means to gauge the potential reaction of interest groups, as well as their ultimate acceptance of the standards (Tandy and Wilburn, 1992). The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the standard-setting body for authoritative governmental accounting standards in the USA. It is an independent, private sector organization that “develops and issues accounting standards through a transparent and inclusive process (italics added)” (GASB.org, 2017). Established in 1984, the GASB enjoyed widespread general acceptance for most of its first quarter century (Roybark et al., 2012a); however, in 2007-2008 its service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) project ignited extreme opposition from professional groups (Roybark et al., 2012b). More recently, a GASB due process document proposing the inclusion of financial projections within governmental financial statements again caused an uproar among some GASB constituents (DePaul, 2012; Quigley, 2011). Given the importance of stakeholder participation in the standard-setting due process, we study comment letters in response to proposals presented by the GASB. Specifically, in this study, we examine comment letters submitted in response to several of the GASB’s due process documents from 2010-2013 to consider who participates in the comment letter process, when they participate (e.g. response trends), and what their comments include (i.e. for or against the standard being proposed). We then select the financial projections preliminary views (PV) document for a more detailed analysis of constituent responses, as it was controversial and elicited 173 comment letters. Of interest is observation of stakeholder motivation – why do stakeholders participate in due process via comment letter submission? We find that while comment letter participation is not widespread, various stakeholders do participate in the governmental accounting standard-setting process. Responses are generally constructive and relatively consistent over the course of our study in their balance of favorable and unfavorable feedback, with a few exceptions. Stakeholders who do not participate perennially will do so when they feel it is warranted, as demonstrated by response to the financial projections PV document. The study extends prior research regarding governmental standard setting due process by including more comprehensive participant classifications, evaluating the nature of comments within the letters, examining responses over time, and considering the possible motivation of participants.