Kevin Yamamura has a story today on the nature of the budget fights now in the court systems.
The Republican governor openly complains about the judiciary these days for blocking budget decisions and forcing California to find billions of dollars elsewhere. Recent judgments have contributed to the state’s $20.7 billion projected deficit.
Courts have ruled that California’s attempts to divert transit and redevelopment money are illegal. They have found in some cases that the state cannot furlough workers. They have blocked rate cuts for in-home care workers and Medi-Cal providers. … “Everything that hasn’t been nailed down has been cut,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California. “What’s left is the legally questionable stuff.” (SacBee)
While legislating via the courts is really nothing new in California, there is a difference of magnitude over the last few years. Most of this is about the system. The system that denies democracy from the start with the 2/3 requirements scattered all over the constitution, yields decisions that are unsurprisingly poor. So, we get legal fights from the State Compensation Fund to the line item vetoes. And we get a pissed off Governator:
“Whenever they agree with me, they’re right, very simple,” Schwarzenegger said wryly in a Capitol news conference. “When they don’t agree with me, they’re wrong and they’re interfering with our governing of the state.”
But sassing the courts really helps nobody, and only takes our eyes off the systemic problems. We are in legal problems because we don’t let the majority govern. We have a system that allows no one body to look at the totality of what’s coming in and what’s going out. The legislature can’t prioritize and the governor can only really posture.
And so, we get a series of judges answering large questions on the budget, questions that would, in any sort of a normal situation, be left to our elected leaders. And Governor, you have yourself to thank for that as much as anybody else.
Schwarzenegger has nobody but himself to blame for trying to force through cuts that were clearly illegal.
But the situation is more complex. Because voters did not like the way the state government was allocating spending, we have passed a number of propositions that mandate government spending. You may argue about why. And I could make a fairly good case myself that voters did not always realize this was what they were doing. But I believe in some cases like education spending, they did it quite deliberately. This is a priority for many California voters and they wanted to protect it.
Schwarzenegger found ways around the education spending mandate that I frankly can’t believe were legal. But, if nobody challenged them, they went through.
Now the cuts are so severe that almost no group is taking them lying down. Instead, they’re taking them to court. And they’re winning because they were illegal under the laws passed by voters.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea to budget by proposition. As you say, that doesn’t allow for a comprehensive understanding of the budget or budgeting process. And it certainly fragments control.
But I can also see the frustration of voters who don’t think their priorities are being respected. Majority rule could eliminate some of that frustration. Public financing and clean election laws would likely do even more.
In the meantime, I would rather judges handle this than Arnold. At least the judges know what the laws are. Arnold either doesn’t, or just doesn’t care. I suspect the latter.
Forgot one more thought. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about overturning decisions that break standing laws. In fact there is a clearly defined hierarchy of laws that allows courts to do just that. It is part of our democratic tradition, and critical to the system of checks and balances that is the hallmark of most developed democracies.
So let’s hear it for judges! Long may they protect a government of laws.
Forgot one more thought. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about overturning decisions that break standing laws. In fact there is a clearly defined hierarchy of laws and courts that allows judges at many levels to do just that. It is part of our democratic tradition, and critical to the system of checks and balances that is the hallmark of most developed democracies.
So let’s hear it for judges! Long may they protect a government of laws.