A Legislative Year That Fit Labor’s Bill

A simple epitaph sums up the 2002 bill-signing season: Labor won big.

That’s the conclusion of legislators, lobbyists and other experts after watching Gov. Gray Davis decide the fate of more than 1,100 bills in September.

Davis turned labor’s legislative triumphs into state law by signing most of the union measures that reached his desk, from comprehensive paid family leave for most Californians to pay raises for prison guards. He made national headlines with the family leave bill, and by granting a form of binding arbitration to unionized farm workers.

“Labor absolutely was a big winner,” said Kent Wong, director of the Center for Labor Research and Education at UCLA.

In sheer political terms, Davis, who is running for reelection Nov. 5, shored up his base with the labor measures and legislation favored by environmental groups, gun-control activists, abortion-rights advocates and trial lawyers. He also set new curbs on auto emissions blamed for global warming and supported controversial stem cell research, again garnering national attention.

“The governor’s campaign has caused him to need his friends more than he’s seemed to think he has in the past,” said V. John White, a veteran lobbyist for environmental and renewable-energy causes. “On both the global warming bill and farm labor bill, he moved faster than people thought he would move on big issues.”

At the same time, demonstrating the political dexterity that has become a defining trait of the self-described centrist governor, Davis didn’t exactly shun his Republican detractors.

He signed several anti-crime and homeland security measures applauded by prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and victims’ rights advocates. Among them were a bill by state Sen. Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz) that prevents criminals from profiting from their crimes and legislation by state Sen. Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga) that allows authorities to forcibly extract DNA from prisoners who may have committed other unsolved crimes.

And, after incurring the wrath of the state’s $27-billion agriculture industry and other business interests by signing the farm labor and paid-leave legislation, Davis handed business four major victories on the final day of bill signings. Among those was a veto of Senate Bill 1828 by Senate leader John Burton (D-San Francisco), which would have given Native American tribes new powers to protect sacred sites from developers.

“You have winners and losers any time you go through this,” said Jeanne Cain, vice president for government relations at the California Chamber of Commerce, the state’s biggest business group. “Our losses were big. And our wins were big.”

By the reckoning of some members of the Latino caucus, California Latinos were the biggest losers in the annual bill-signing sweepstakes that ended at midnight Monday.

For many Latinos, the goodwill the governor generated by signing the farm worker legislation was lost when he vetoed a pair of bills--AB 60 and SB 804--that would have given driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

Davis killed similar legislation last year and promised to sign the measure this year if law enforcement concerns were satisfied. The legislation was the focal point of long and tortuous negotiations between the governor and Latino legislators this year.

Now, some Latino lawmakers are accusing the governor of bargaining in bad faith and breaking his promise--charges he rejects.

The list of disappointments for Latino legislators doesn’t end there. Citing severe budget restraints, Davis vetoed a number of other bills on education, housing and health initiatives aimed at Latinos.

The Latino caucus responded Friday by denying Davis its endorsement for reelection.

Still, Davis has his defenders among Latino legislators.

“Overall, I think he’s done a pretty good job for the state of California,” said Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar), a member of the Latino caucus. “We’ve had some pretty big constraints the last couple of years, particularly with the budget deficit and the economy taking a nose-dive.”

He faults Davis for vetoing the driver’s license bills but praises him for signing the farm labor legislation and supporting other measures important to his constituents. Overall, he gives the governor a grade of B this year.

Davis’ critics say it’s no coincidence that unions--the single biggest source of campaign cash for the Democratic governor--were the year’s biggest winners. Davis signed 16 of the 19 California Labor Federation-backed bills that reached his desk.

Union leaders say their victories were a triumph for working Californians, not a tribute to labor’s massive political contributions.

“These are issues that are important to your average family,” said Art Pulaski, secretary general of the federation.

Labor’s victories went far beyond the headlines. Unions succeeded in inserting “prevailing wage” language in dozens of bills on various issues, in the process nearly scuttling a hard-won overhaul of the state’s construction-defect law and gumming up renewable-energy legislation sponsored by environmental groups, lobbyists and legislators said.

Such tactics weren’t limited to labor groups and their supporters. On the eve of the Sept. 11 anniversary, Davis touted a piece of legislation he signed as a measure aiding families affected by last year’s terrorist attacks. Four paragraphs of the seven-page bill did just that; the rest of the bill gave trial lawyers, a major Democratic and Davis constituency, a two-year filing period, rather than one, for personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits in the state.

Environmental groups scored their biggest victory in years when Davis bucked automakers, oil companies and the United Auto Workers by signing legislation limiting future tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. He also signed major legislation promoting the use of renewable energy.

Environmental groups didn’t get everything they wanted. Davis sided with Silicon Valley against them when he vetoed a so-called e-waste bill that would have slapped a $10 fee on the sale of television sets and computer monitors.

In general, Republicans don’t have nice things to say about Davis. But McPherson, a candidate for lieutenant governor, says he was personally pleased that Davis signed a number of public safety and security bills, including the Republican senator’s “Son of Sam II” bill preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes.

He also credits Davis for signing legislation strengthening technical education and after-school programs. But, like other Republicans, McPherson castigates Davis for what he describes as the governor’s failure to make the tough budget decisions needed to “return the state to some fiscal sanity.” And he contends that Davis’ love for labor will result in “huge costs placed on business in California.”

Business groups say the impact will vary from industry to industry.

“I don’t see anything that damaged the high-tech industry,” said Cain, the Chamber of Commerce lobbyist, noting that Davis signed nine bills on the group’s annual “job-killer list” and vetoed four. “The farm community, agricultural community, I think, had some truly damaging setbacks. The paid family leave and [expansion of the workers’ compensation program earlier this year] will have significant implications for business, especially small business.”

Voters won’t pass judgment on Davis’ actions for another month. But the governor had their inclinations in mind as he made his decisions, experts say.

“Gray Davis is a very cautious politician,” said Wong. “He generally wants to do the right thing. At the same time he’s always looking at the polls and seeing the impact that a piece of legislation will have on the polls, on his reelection, on his political career.”

Not surprisingly, the winners say the governor ensured his reelection by signing their bills.

Before, “there wasn’t a particular reason for people to say, ‘That’s my guy’, “ said labor leader Pulaski. “I think now with these new actions that Gray Davis has done, he begins to overcome some of the skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, but now people need to look at the record, and informed voters will do that.”