CDCAN DISABILITY RIGHTS REPORT #175-2010 –  OCTOBER 4,  2010 – MONDAY

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 10/04/2010  10:15 AM  (Pacific Time)]  – The California Supreme Court, in two separate opinions released this morning, decided in favor of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on his power to order mandatory furloughs of state employees and the use of the Governor’s line-item veto power in a bill that revised the 2009-2010 State Budget in July 2009. 

The decisions won’t impact the size of the current state budget since the furloughs and cuts resulting from the July 2009 line item vetoes have already been implemented  – and the court’s decisions today did not restore it those cuts. 

A copy of both opinions released this morning by the California Supreme Court can be downloaded at:   http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi?Courts=S

STATE EMPLOYEE MANDATORY FURLOUGHS:

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT ET AL. v. SCHWARZENEGGER ET AL.

Argued before the California Supreme Court on September 8, 2010. 

This case presented the following issues:

(1) On December 19, 2008, did the Governor have authority unilaterally to impose a mandatory two-day-a-month unpaid furlough for state employees by issuing an executive order?

(2) Did the Legislature’s enactment in February 2009 of the revised Budget Act of 2008 and the initial Budget Act of 2009 affect the validity of the Governor’s executive order and/or the remedy that the employee organizations may be entitled to obtain in this proceeding?

WHAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECIDED 10/04/2010: Decided in favor of the Governor and that state employees were not subject to back pay.

GOVERNOR’S 2009 LINE ITEM VETOES:

The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Governor’s use of line item vetoes in July 2009 to a bill  – AB 1×4 that revised the 2009-2010 State Budget that was passed four months earlier (February 2009). 

The California Supreme Court decided that:

Article IV, section 10 (e) grants the Governor the limited legislative authority to eliminate or reduce “items of appropriation.” For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we conclude that the budget reductions here at issue were “items of appropriation” within the meaning of that constitutional provision, and that therefore the Governor‟s exercise of line-item authority to reduce those appropriations, while approving other portions of Assembly Bill 4X 1, was consistent with his constitutional powers….

The judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, denying the petition for writ of mandate, is affirmed.

The California Supreme Court noted that the Governor’s use of line item vetoes in July 2009 was not the “last word” because the Legislature retained the power to over-ride those vetoes (with 2/3rds vote in both houses). 

The opinion in favor of the Governor regarding his use of his line item veto power when it was used to make additional cuts, beyond what the Legislature already had approved  – to legislation (AB 1×4) in July 2009 that revised the 2009-2010 State Budget passed four months earlier in February 2009, means those reductions remain. 

Those additional cuts impacted In-Home Supportive Services Public Authorities and other health and human services.  [Note: the “x4” after AB 1, stands for fourth special or extraordinary legislative session of the 2009-2010 legislative year] .  A similar lawsuit filed also in 2009 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (Democrat – Sacramento, 6th State Senate District) is still officially pending in the lower state courts awaiting the outcome of the St. John’s case. 

The two nearly identical lawsuits (St. John’s Well Child and Family Center v. Schwarzenegger et al  and Darrell Steinberg v. Schwarzenegger et al) only deal with the Governor’s reductions made in late July 2009 using his line item veto.  

The state lawsuit, “St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al.” (case number A125750)  was originally filed August 12, 2009 by 4 public interest law groups: Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), Western Center on Law and Poverty, Neighborhood Legal Services and Kirkland & Ellis LLP. 

The public interest law groups are representing 8 advocacy organizations and individuals (listed in the order in the lawsuit): St. John’s Well Child and Family Center (a community health center); Rosa Navarro; Lionso Guzman; California Foundation for Independent Living Centers; Nevada-Sierra Regional In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority; Californians for Disability Rights;  Liane Yasumoto; and Judith Smith). 

The lawsuit was filed against Governor Schwarzenegger, as the chief executive officer of the State and State Controller John Chiang, in his capacity as the independently state elected official responsible for paying the state’s bills

Summary of the St. John’s Case

ST. JOHN’S WELL CHILD AND FAMILY CENTER ET AL. v. SCHWARZENEGGER ET AL.

Argued before the California Supreme Court in San Francisco on September 8, 2010.

This case presented the following issue:

Does the Governor’s constitutional line-item veto power “to reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation” in the California Constitution., Article IV, Section 10, Subdivision (e), apply to provisions in a mid-year emergency bill (July 2009) that reduced appropriation amounts of a previously-enacted budget bill (February 2009)?

WHAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECIDED 10/04/2010: Ruled in favor of the Governor. 

BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE:

·         The case, St. John’s Well Child and Family Center et al v. Schwarzenegger et al, was one of two separate state lawsuits that was filed in two different state courts dealing with the Governor’s line item vetoes that he made in July 2009.  The other similar lawsuit was filed, also in August 2009, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (Democrat – Los Angeles). 

·         The Darrell Steinberg v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al  lawsuit (case number CPF-09-509721) was filed in San Francisco Superior Court by Sen. Steinberg,  but covers an additional 14 line item vetoes that the St. John’s Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit does not address.  (The other respondent in the case besides the Governor is State Controller John Chiang).  That lawsuit is currently pending in Superior Court.  No trial court date has been set yet – though with the California Supreme Court decision today (October 4, 2010), no further action is expected on the Steinberg  case. 

·         Both lawsuits had claimed that the State Constitution only allows a governor to veto “items of appropriation” and that the line item veto power does not apply to a revised budget where funding was previously approved and enacted – in this case in February when the 2009-2010 State Budget was passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor four months early (before July 1 – the start of the state budget year). 

·         The Governor in late July 2009 made additional reductions of over  $489 million using his line item veto power (which allows a governor to reduce the amount of money appropriated by the Legislature for a specific line item in the state budget).  Of that amount, about $394 million of that amount were reductions made in health and human service related programs, including over $37 million in funding to In-Home Supportive Services Public Authorities, an additional $50 million for services and supports for children up to age 5 funded through the 21 non-profit regional centers and an additional $50 million reduction in funding to Healthy Families.  Some of those reductions were made with the hope by the Governor of replacing the lost funding with other funding – though the cut took effect regardless of whether other funding was obtained.

·         The Governor’s legal team previously expressed confidence that the state courts would reject any challenge to the governor’s vetoes because the revised state budget contained appropriations. That claim was supported by court documents (“amicus curiae” or “friend of the court” briefs) submitted by 3 former governors supporting Schwarzenegger’s position  (Republicans George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson and Democrat Gray Davis). 

What St. John’s Well Child & Family Center Lawsuit Wanted To Do

The St. John’s We’ll Child and Family Center lawsuit filed wanted the California Supreme Court to overturn the Governor’s line item vetoes made to Sections 568 and 570-575 of ABx4 1 [the revised 2009-2010 State Budget bill - the “x4” stands for the 4th special or extraordinary session of the Legislature] as follows:

·         Additional reduction for the California Department of Aging from $9,483,000 to $15,643,000

·         Additional reduction to Medi-Cal local assistance by $60,569,000

·         Elimination of funding for the Community Clinic Programs

·         Additional reduction of state general funding for Office of AIDS by $52,133,000

·         Additional reduction in funding for the Domestic Violence Program by $16,337,000

·         Additional reduction in funding for the Adolescent Family Life Program by $9,000,000

·         Additional reduction in funding for the Black Infant Health Program by $3,003,000

·         Additional reduction in funding for the Healthy Families program by $50,000,000

·         Additional reduction in funding for the Regional Center’s budget that purchases community-based services (purchase of services) for children up to age 5, by $50,000,000

·         Additional reduction in funding for the Caregiver Resource Centers by $4,082,000

·         Reduction in funding for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) public authorities by $37,555,000

Note: the separate state lawsuit filed by Sen. Steinberg covers these line item vetoes plus an additional 14 other line item vetoes not covered in this lawsuit. 

Governor’s Line Item Veto Power Not Normally Questioned

·         Normally a governor’s line item veto power would not be questioned, but this year the state budget for 2009-2010 was passed four months early – in mid February 2009 – by the Legislature (the state budget year begins July 1 and ends June 30).  Unlike the 2009-2010 Budget revised in July 2009, he long delayed 2010-2011 State Budget that the Governor and legislative leaders hope to see passed and enacted later this week is not a revision of a previously passed 2010-2011 State Budget

·         Despite the massive spending cuts and temporary tax increases made in February 2009, another budget gap opened up by May 2009, and by June 2009 grew to over $23 billion.  The Legislature, after a month long impasse in both houses – finally passed a revised 2009-2010 State Budget in late July 2009, which the Governor signed – along with making additional reductions using his line item vetoes. 

·         Those who filed the two state lawsuits believed taht the Governor had a right to use his line item veto power in February 2009 when the original budget for 2009-2010 was passed – which he did do – but that he had no authority to use that same power in late July 2009  because the budget bill submitted to him (ABx4 1), were simply revisions to funding already approved and appropriated by the Legislature in February 2009.

·         The Governor said in July 2009 that he was forced to make additional cuts to programs using his line item veto power because the Assembly did not follow through in approving the budget deal in late July agreed to by the “Big Five” (the Governor, the Democratic and Republican Senate legislative leaders and the Democratic and Republican Assembly leaders). 

·         The Assembly in late July 2009 ended up approving the over all revised budget bill, but rejected two key budget related measures that included $1.1 billion in proposals included transfer of local gas tax funds and  authorizing offshore oil drilling that was approved by the State Senate.