Like Moses, the California Supreme Court has just handed down the law. And it says that the governor's furloughs and line-item vetoes of 2009 were valid.As noted in prior posts, UC furloughs were imposed by the Regents, not the governor, and were not an issue in the cases that wound up at the state Supreme Court. However, had the Court ruled against the governor, it would have possibly raised a back pay liability for affected state workers. If state workers received back pay, there would be pressure on UC to do the same. That now will not happen.
The Court's decision is at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S183411.PDF
(Analysts indicate that the decision could constrain a future governor and leaves the validity of the new furloughs ordered this past summer uncertain. The Court linked its approval to the fact that the legislature eventually went along with the governor by taking account of the furlough savings in the budget.)
On the line-item veto: During the budget crisis, the legislature reopened the 2008-09 budget in February 2009 and - at the same time - did a budget for 2009-10. Voters rejected various ballot propositions in May 2009 that were part of the February deal, but technically there was still a budget in place for 2009-10. When the legislature modified that budget during the summer of 2009, the governor used a line-item veto. Legislative Democrats argued that since there was only a modified budget, not a new budget, the governor had no line-item authority. Apparently, the Court did not see it that way. If the state had had to undo the reductions made by the governor, it would have made the current fiscal problem worse.
The line-item veto Court decision is at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S181760.PDF
No comments:
Post a Comment