State High Court Hears Challenge of Veto Authority

In a pivotal test of constitutional authority, the state Supreme Court was urged Monday to prevent the governor from making selective vetoes of portions of non-budget measures passed by the Legislature.

A lawyer for welfare rights organizations told the justices that they should overturn Gov. George Deukmejian’s precedent-setting 1984 veto of a part of a bill that would have enabled needy families to receive benefits earlier.

“That action gave the governor a legislative function he is clearly not intended to have and violates the separation of powers,” attorney Sarah E. Kurtz said in oral argument before the court in Los Angeles. In addition to his authority to veto individual bills passed by the lawmakers, the chief executive has long held power to make selective line-item vetoes of an appropriations bill.

What is at issue here is whether he also can veto selective portions of a budget implementation bill that set policy for state programs. Both sides say the court’s decision, expected in the coming months, could alter the balance of power between the governor and the Legislature.

The case arose from a dispute between Deukmejian and the lawmakers over the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Under the policy implemented by the governor, AFDC payments were authorized from the date an applicant’s eligibility was determined.

The Legislature sought to make aid available from the date of application, a change that would have provided an average of $300 additionally per family. Money to support the change was included in a $1.5-billion welfare budget bill and the new policy on payments was placed in a separate and far-ranging budget implementation measure.

The governor responded by reducing the budget by $9.8 million--the amount the new policy would have cost--and then went on to veto that portion of the budget implementation bill that would have put the policy in effect.

The Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations brought suit against the governor, contending his item-veto authority was limited to appropriations bills. The Legislature joined in support, saying the executive had overstepped constitutional limits on his veto power.

But last January, in a 2-1 decision, the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld the governor, saying he had the right to selectively veto a non-budget provision “directly linked” to an appropriation. The dissent warned that the ruling gave the governor “potentially limitless” authority to use selective vetoes to strike down state programs.

In Monday’s one-hour hearing, Deputy Atty. Gen. Robert E. Murphy, representing the governor, argued that the implementation measure at issue was effectively part of the budget. The governor, he said, must be able to counter a bid by the Legislature to “veto proof” a non-budget provision by including it in a larger, separate legislative package. Otherwise, the governor would be improperly faced with accepting or rejecting larger bills on an “all-or-nothing” basis, he said.

In that situation, Murphy said, the lawmakers could force the governor to approve measures he opposes--like the welfare policy change--in order to obtain enactment of other provisions in a bill he found desirable.

Murphy also contended that by including the measure in a wide-ranging budget implementation bill, the Legislature violated state constitutional provisions limiting statutes to one subject. Several of the justices appeared reluctant to bar the governor from making selective vetoes of non-budget legislation closely tied to appropriations.

“Isn’t it incongruous to give the governor power to reduce the budget, but not give him the power to indicate where the budget should be reduced?” Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird asked.

Question Posed

Justice Allen E. Broussard asked how the governor could be allowed to make line-item vetoes of appropriations bills but not of legislation that implements them.

“Does that make sense?” he asked.

Attorney Kurtz replied that while the governor could legally reduce the AFDC budget, “it’s not up to him to determine where those remaining funds will be used.” Even though the budget was reduced, the policy change providing earlier benefits could still be implemented and be financed through other funding sources, if necessary, she said.