Santa Ana Comes Together To Pray  >  Shifting the Burden – California Tax Overhaul Plan Nearing Completion  >  Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Begins  >  Special Thanksgiving Message 2009  >  Budget Battle Continues: Steinberg v. Schwarzenegger

Budget Battle Continues: Steinberg v. Schwarzenegger


Budget Battle Continues: Steinberg v. Schwarzenegger
On July 28, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law modifications to the state budget, which was originally approved in February. These modifications were necessary to address a $26 billion deficit resulting from the inability of the Legislature and governor to effectively predict revenues and manage state resources in the continued recession. After months of debate, politicking and maneuvering, Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders agreed on $25 billion in budget remedies to close the deficit. 
However, legislative leaders in the state Assembly could not garner the necessary votes to pass two pieces of the “budget deal.” Assembly members refused to allow the state to borrow $1 billion from local government gas taxes, and would not approve limited offshore oil drilling that would raise $100 million. In response to the Assembly’s failure to approve these measures, the governor vetoed approximately $600 million from the modified budget. 
The governor’s vetoes riled legislative Democrats and the affected constituency groups. Before the ink could dry on the governor’s signature, groups began plans to sue the state over its budget actions. One surprising litigant is Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the Senate Pro Tem. Steinberg contends that the governor “violated his constitutional authority in making line-item vetoes to the budget revision bill.” 
Based on a Legislative Counsel opinion, which argued the governor’s use of his “line-item” veto authority was invalid, Senator Steinberg officially filed suit on August 10, 2009. In the Legislative Counsel’s opinion, the governor’s veto authority is limited to “appropriations.” The Counsel’s interpretation is that the budget bill included only reductions to previously approved appropriations, and vetoes of amended appropriations are outside the governor’s constitutional authority. In other words, according to the Legislative Counsel’s office, the governor’s veto pen will reach as far as an original appropriation, but cannot veto planned expenses that have already been reduced by a vote of the Legislature.
In response to criticism of his veto usage, Andrea Lynn Hoch, Schwarzenegger’s Legal Affairs Secretary, issued a statement saying the budget – original or amended – can only contain appropriations; as such, his veto actions are legal and appropriate. The Court will now be asked to define what an “appropriation” is. 
  • Printer-friendly version