Welfare Bill Veto Ruled Invalid, but Allowed to Stand

Gov. George Deukmejian exceeded his constitutional authority when he vetoed part of a 1984 budget “trailer bill” that expanded welfare benefits for families with children, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In the same decision, the court held that the Legislature must abandon its annual practice of using trailer bills to amend scores of state laws in a single measure in order to implement the new state budget. The practice violates the state constitutional requirement that legislation deal with only one subject, the court said.

Used Against Veto

Deukmejian’s attorney had argued that budget trailer bills have become devices to thwart the governor’s veto power.

The court took the unusual step of restricting its rulings on the veto power and single-subject bills to future legislation. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Stanley Mosk, the court said it did so to avoid the consequences of invalidating budget implementation bills dating back eight years. As a result, the governor’s veto of the welfare benefits provision will stand.

“The immediate impact is . . . the governor’s view (on welfare payments) prevails,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Robert E. Murphy, who argued the case before the high court. “The long-range impact is much harder to assess. I would feel exceedingly safe in calling it a complex decision.”

Spokespersons for Deukmejian and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) said they were not prepared to comment on the court’s ruling. Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) was unavailable.

The court’s decision reiterates limits on the governor’s constitutional veto power established by earlier court decisions. Under the state Constitution, the governor has the authority to go into an appropriation bill, including annual budget bills, to delete or reduce specific dollar amounts. However, he has no similar power to tinker with general legislation, which he must accept or reject in its entirety.

Court Spells It Out

“The governor must accept all of the provisions of a non-appropriation bill or disapprove the whole measure,” the court said in Tuesday’s decision.

“I think it’s very good that they found the veto was invalid,” said Sarah E. Kurtz, who represented three San Mateo mothers who, along with a welfare rights organization, filed the lawsuit against the governor and other state officials. “It’s important because what the governor can veto and can’t veto really changes the entire picture of what the law in this state is,” she said. However, she said she was disappointed that the veto will be allowed to stand.

Kevin Aslanian, executive director of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, the fourth plaintiff, said, “In essence, what the court is saying is that the governor can do something wrong and get away with it, where if poor people do something wrong, we get locked up.”

In the second part of its ruling, the court for the first time explicitly labeled as illegal the Legislature’s recent practice of bringing scores of state laws into conformity with the new budget by passing a single measure, known formally as a budget implementation bill.

Such bills have been enacted each year since the 1978-79 legislative session.

The court noted that the 1984 trailer bill amended, repealed or added “approximately 150 sections contained in more than 20 codes and legislative acts. It’s title describes the measure as ‘relating to fiscal affairs. . . .’ ”

Mosk wrote, “The number and scope of topics germane to ‘fiscal affairs’ in this sense is virtually unlimited.” If such bills were permitted under the “single subject” rule, “a substantial portion of the many thousand statutes adopted during each legislative session could be included in a single mea sure even though their provisions had no relationship to one another or to any single object. . . .”

The case decided Tuesday arose from a 1984 dispute between the governor and the Legislature.

In the 1984 budget, the Legislature set aside more than $1.5 billion for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the state’s largest welfare program.

That figure included $9.8 million that would have allowed the state for the first time to pay benefits to eligible families covering the period from the time they first applied for the aid. The then-current policy was to pay benefits only from the date that eligibility was determined.

The governor responded by reducing the budget by $9.8 million and then vetoing the section of the separate budget implementation bill that would have put the new policy into effect.

The three women and the welfare rights group then filed suit, contending that Deukmejian’s item-veto authority extended only to appropriations bills. The Legislature joined in support, saying the governor had overstepped constitutional limits on his veto power.