Governor’s Spending Vetoes are Legal
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…”