Umberg Fails at Veto Override Attempt : Politics: His bill would have required wealthy prison inmates to pay the cost of their incarceration.

In a move riddled with election-year politics, the Assembly rejected an attempt Monday by Orange County Assemblyman Tom Umberg to override a veto of his bill that would have required wealthy prison inmates to pay the cost of their incarceration.

The proposal by Umberg (D-Garden Grove) had sailed through the Legislature on a series of unanimous committee and floor votes last year before it was vetoed Oct. 11 by Gov. Pete Wilson.

But the Assembly on Monday voted 42 to 31 along strict partisan lines, falling well short of the two-thirds needed for an override.

Assembly Republicans claimed that amendments watering down the bill had been slipped in at the 11th hour of last year’s session before they had time to review the details.

They also echoed arguments made by Wilson in vetoing the measure--that it was too weak and wouldn’t hit all inmates. The bill exempts from consideration up to $730,000 in personal assets, including an inmate’s home or car, meaning that only the wealthy could be forced to pay their costs of incarceration.

“This bill only applies to rich people,” Assemblyman Dean Andal (R-Stockton) said, adding that “if this bill applied to everyone, we’d support it.”

Andal and other Republicans also suggested Umberg’s measure would cause gridlock in the courts by requiring extensive hearings to determine a prisoner’s financial worth. “It would be extremely costly,” Andal said. “We might as well call it the lawyer’s full-employment act.”

Umberg and Democrat backers of the bill said such arguments were unfounded and ignored practical realities. Asset hearings could be combined with other court proceedings, they said. In addition, even if the bill applied to all prisoners, prosecutors would probably only pursue those who actually had the economic clout to afford the more than $20,000-a-year cost of a prison stay.

“Perhaps this is not a perfect bill,” Umberg told his colleagues during debate on the measure. “But perhaps one of the people who stand up to oppose this bill should explain to me why Joe Hunt of the Billionaire Boys Club shouldn’t pay the cost of his incarceration? Why shouldn’t Charles Keating pay his cost of incarceration? Why shouldn’t Charles Manson?”

If the measure tapped funds from just 1% of the prison population, it would save the state $38 million a year, Umberg said.

Umberg argued that Wilson had “made a mistake” by vetoing the bill and that Republicans were trying to cover for the governor in this election year. “We all voted for the bill last year,” he said. “Let’s vote for this thing again. It was a good idea when you voted for it, it’s a good idea now.”

Although the bill originally hit all prisoners equally, it was amended in committee by liberal lawmakers reluctant to impose strict financial penalties that could put a prisoner’s family out on the streets and on the public dole. The Assembly gave the amended version of the bill final approval on a 77-0 vote on Sept. 2, eight days before the close of session.

Both sides appeared to be grappling for political gain in the struggle over Umberg’s bill. Assemblyman Louis Caldera (D-Los Angeles) suggested that Republicans were back-peddling on the measure in part because they didn’t want to give a political plum to Umberg, who is making a run for state attorney general.

“Mr. Umberg had a good idea here. In fact, it’s such a good idea that Mr. Andal wants to carry it now,” Caldera said, adding that lawmakers should “look at the bill on its merits, not on whether Mr. Umberg is running for attorney general.”

But in trying to win the override for Umberg’s bill, Democrats were also playing politics, stocking up on election-day ammunition they hope will make Republicans appear weaker on crime.