Line-item vetoes made by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in July's 2009-10 budget revisions were constitutional, the First District Court of Appeal ruled March 2.
The court's action preserves the governor's line-item vetoes that reduced the 2009-10 budget by more than $488 million. Even with those cuts, the budget remains roughly $6 billion out of balance as the state heads into the final stretch of the fiscal year.
The ruling came as bad news for Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg and former Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, interveners in the case, who were represented by the Remcho, Johansen and Purcell law firm.
The petitioners of record were St. John's Well Child and Family Center (a nonprofit network of five community health centers and six school-based clinics in Los Angeles County) and other entities and individuals, including an In-Home Supportive Services agency, affected by the cuts.
Senator Steinberg and Speaker Bass contended that the items the governor vetoed in ABX4 1 of 2009 were not "items of appropriation" because the Legislature reduced amounts that previously had been appropriated – and, they argued, the governor cannot reduce a reduction.
The Democratic leaders cited Harbor v. Deukmejian, a 1987 case in which the state Supreme Court held that the governor could not veto a provision of a bill that was not an "item of appropriation."
In rejecting those arguments, the court said: "The challenged items presented to the Governor in Assembly Bill 4X 1, each 'appear to fill all the requirements of a distinct item of appropriation of so much of a definite sum of money as may be required for a designated purpose connected with the state government' … whether spending authority is increased or decreased, it is still spending authority."
The court further demolished the petitioners' case by saying that if, as interveners claim, ABX4 1's amendments to the 2009 Budget Act do not re-enact the items of appropriation they purport to change, the measure would violate the directive of Article IV, Section 9 of the California Constitution, that "[a] section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended."
Secondly, the court stated, if the reduced items at issue are not items of appropriation, ABX4 1 seemingly would violate the single-subject requirement of Article IV, Section 9, as a bill dealing with more than the single subject of appropriations.
The court also stated that if the petitioners were correct that the legislation was not a "budget bill," the legislation would violate the provisions of Article VI, Section 12(d) that state only a budget bill may contain more than one item of appropriation.
The court firmly rejected the position of the legislative counsel, who issued an opinion that the vetoes were illegal. The court stated: "While an opinion of Legislative Counsel is entitled to respect, its weight depends on the reasons given in its support. Because the conclusions of Legislative Counsel seem to us little more than a series of ipse dixits, we accord them 'little weight.'" (Cal-Tax: Ipse dixits is Latin for "unsupported assertions.")
The case is St. John's Well Child and Family Center et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor, etc., et al., No. A125750, (2010).
The opinion was written by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline Jr., and was concurred in by Justices James Lambden and James Richman.
Cal-TaxReports, March 8, 2010
© 2010 California Taxpayers'
Association.
All Rights Reserved.