Advertisement

Justices Tackle Budget Issue

Share
Times Staff Writer

The struggle over passing the state’s budget slipped into the California Supreme Court on Tuesday as the justices grappled with whether the state’s 250,000 workers should be paid during budget impasses.

In 1998, a court injunction ordered the state to stop paying its bills until a budget was signed or an appropriations bill was passed.

In a subsequent ruling, an appeals court decided that under the state Constitution, most state employees can be paid no more than the federal minimum wage during a budget impasse unless the Legislature passes emergency legislation.

Advertisement

Meeting for arguments in Los Angeles, several high court justices appeared critical of the injunction.

“Where in the Constitution does it say a single trial judge can basically shut down state government?” Justice Marvin Baxter asked.

Budget crises occur with regularity in Sacramento, and the state high court’s decision in the case may help determine who gets paid if the Legislature fails to act in the future.

The Legislature has failed to pass a budget on time in 16 of the last 25 years, Richard I. Fine, representing the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., told the court. The state Constitution prohibits paying government workers their full compensation without a budget in place or emergency legislation, he said.

If the courts allow the state to pay its workers without a budget, “the Constitution is being hurt,” Fine said.

But several justices suggested that the real victims in the case are state workers and the functioning of government. Baxter pointed to the possibility that all of the state’s correctional officers might stay home and the prisons would not be staffed during impasses if workers are not paid.

Advertisement

Fine said the injunction just ensured “the status quo” -- that government should not be making payments without a budget or emergency appropriation.

“The status quo involves paying employees their wages,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George retorted.

The 1998 injunction was never enforced because the Legislature passed an emergency appropriations bill the next day that kept workers on the job.

Fine argued that such court orders are helpful because they force the Legislature to act.

“You would want to see that put to the test?” George asked skeptically.

“I would,” Fine replied.

Anne M. Giese, a lawyer representing the California State Employees Assn., told the court that the state has a contractual obligation to pay its workers their regular salaries.

“State employees shouldn’t be the ones who are jeopardized by the Legislature’s failures,” she said.

When the Legislature fails to pass budgets on time, lawmakers should be turned out of office by the voters, she said.

Advertisement

Baxter responded that the political process “hasn’t taken care of the system in the past.” He noted that vendors who provide services and supplies to the state “have to wait to be paid” during budget crises. Wouldn’t they also be covered by contract protections? he asked.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar asked whether salaries have to be paid on time or can be delayed until a budget is in place.

“We believe it should be timely,” Giese said.

Fine said he believes that the court will rule against the injunction, but that it also will decide state employees cannot be paid more than the minimum wage without a budget or special legislation.

If lawmakers are faced with paying state employees only the minimum wage, they will be more likely to pass emergency legislation that allows everyone to be paid, Fine said.

The court has 90 days to rule.

Advertisement