Over the past couple of days, there has been some post-budget chatter around the Capitol on whether Governor Schwarzenegger has the legal authority to make additional cuts to the budget, such as those he made on Tuesday in order to balance our budget and maintain a reserve.
The ability to make these line-item cuts – more commonly known as “blue penciling” – is a standard course of action following the legislature’s approval of a budget agreement. In a typical budget year nobody would think twice about this perfectly normal step in the process. This year however, is far from typical.
What constitutes an “appropriation” has been long established in California law. All that is required is a fund source, an amount, and a purpose. That’s it. There is no requirement for special words, or particular verbiage, or a special format. Instead all that is needed is a clear intent by the Legislature to provide that a certain sum of money – and no more than that sum – may be spent out of a particular fund on a particular activity. (Humbert v. Dunn (1890) 84 Cal. 57, 59.) Relying on this more that 120-yearold definition, the amendment to the budget bill which was sent to the Governor this week did contain appropriations. Indeed at the front of this same bill is a statement by the legislature’s own legal counsel that it is “An act… relating to the State Budget, making an appropriation therefore…”
Furthermore, contrary to certain contentions, the bill does not only contain reductions. Certain items of appropriations in the bill were augmented (increased), while other appropriations were decreased. While these facts do not alter the Governor’s authority to reduce expenditures, the failure to see them does suggest that perhaps some people are simply jumping to conclusions.
California’s Constitution makes it clear in Article IV, Section 10 (e) that “the Governor may reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation while approving other portions of a bill.” Simply, any time the Legislature presents an appropriation to the Governor he can reduce it or eliminate it. This authority extends to any bill containing any appropriation passed by a majority or super-majority vote – regardless of when it was enacted.
The argument that the Governor acted illegally because the items in amendment to the budget bill were not appropriations falls flat based on the fact that the items in the bill meet the triad definition of an appropriation. Further, the argument that the amendment to the budget bill does not contain appropriations because they were worded as reductions holds no water. Such contentions that rewording or reformatting can destroy the Governor’s Constitutional authority to use his blue-pencil was long ago dismissed by the California Supreme Court.
In Wood v. Riley (1923) (192 Cal. 293.) the California Supreme Court recognized the Governor’s veto authority and limitation on the Legislature’s ability to restrict Governor’s veto authority. The court stated that “To sustain the contention . . . that the proviso in question did not amount to an item of appropriation, and was therefore remove from the effect of the executive veto, would be to hold that the Legislature might, by indirection, defeat the purpose of the constitutional amendment giving the Governor power to control the expenditures of the state”
In other words, you can’t circumvent the state constitution with fancy language.