A California Republican

In case you haven’t heard, the CA Legislature is going to have a Special Session (a session outside of their regular session, for a specific purpose, as declared by the Governor). This Special Session is to find some ways to fix the budget before we hit a $22 billion + hole. If there are no solutions sometime soon, the next budget will start in a $22+ billion dollar hole, and the state will run out of cash early next year.

The Governor has put a lot of ideas on the table. Most of these ideas were in his 2008-09 January 10 Budget - which was unanimously rejected by both parties. In fact, he couldn’t find one person to carry it. So he is re-iterating those ideas.

And calling on the federal government to bail the state out. As a side note, federalism - which is what we profess to practice - would seem to prohibit this. The federal government does somethings, and everything else the state does. I don’t find it - anywhere - in the federal Constitution that says they have the powers to bail the state out in financial difficulties. Which means that power is reserved to the state. Guess CA is out of luck.

Anyways, the question is - will any of the bills passed in the Special Session after Nov. 15 be legal? The California Constitution says the following: SEC. 10 (d) The Legislature may not present any bill to the Governor after November 15 of the second calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session.

However, the Governor asked for an opinion from Legislative Counsel who said: Given the wording of the relevant provisions of Section 10, as discussed below, and their apparent purpose, it is our view that these deadlines apply only to bills passed in the two-year regular session and not to bills passed in a special session. So legislative counsel said - go ahead. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit these bills. To read the full leg counsel opinion click here.

But if people want to challenge the legality of some of the Special Session ideas, the certainly have room to challenge it. Leg counsel has been wrong before, and I am sure they will be wrong in the future. Really, all the leg counsel opinion consists of is an opinion - an informed opinion - but an opinion nonetheless. It is’t binding, and isn’t a judicial ruling. So there is still room to challenge it.

Will anyone succeed is a different question. But for the CTA, lobbyists and others who have vested interests in not having cuts to their programs, I can guarantee that they will be taking a close look at the language.