Schwarzenegger Vetoing Hundreds of Bills—At Record Rate—Even Those Passed Unanimously By Both Houses

It passed the Assembly 76 to 0 and the Senate 39 to 0. Not only did it not have a dissenting vote in either house, it had no known opposition according to the floor analyses and had the support of many organizations and entities of California government including the California Alliance for Retired Americans, Congress of California Seniors, California Association of Area Agencies on Aging, California Commission on Aging, California Department of Insurance, and the County Welfare Directors Association of California.

Assemblymember Jones said he was “perplexed and deeply disappointed” by the veto of this bill. He issued a statement which reads: "The Governor's veto will greatly frustrate efforts of local officials and business and community leaders to deal with problem liquor stores." Mr. Jones noted that while under existing law the ABC may impose conditions on liquor store licenses and has the power to revoke licenses that are not complying with those conditions, Existing law provides very limited opportunity for local governments to prevent liquor stores from popping up in the first place. We have too many examples where city leaders, police, and businesses have worked hard and finally succeeded in closing down a problem liquor store only to have another license issued nearby."

This is but one of the examples of legislation important to those who have been elected to represent their districts and respond to complaints from their constituents that have been vetoed.

Another bill vetoed was SB 349 by Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, which would have prohibited health plans and insurers from charging extra fees on consumers who want to receive their bill in the mail instead of electronically. One of the examples Perata used as a reason for the bill is the practice of Blue Cross to charge enrollees who opt to receive monthly billing two dollars per month and Health Net to charge an extra five dollars a month. Perata said of the veto: “Those of us who choose to receive a bill the old fashion way should not be penalized. This bill, which received no opposition, would have put an end to this practice which unfairly targets the poor and the elderly who do not have access or chose not to use a computer.”

To give perspective on all of this, in 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger had a heavy veto hand but only used this prerogative on 22% of the 964 bills sent to him during that entire year. Looking at the 896 bills he has dealt with in all of 2008 (including those sent to him earlier in the year), as of Sunday evening, he had signed 565 bills and vetoed 278—for a 33% veto record. Of the 301 bills arriving on his desk earlier this year, only 19 were vetoed or 6.34%. It is not uncommon for there to be a much higher veto rate on end of session bills, but Schwarzenegger is likely to set a record surpassing the earlier days of his governorship—even when he had rocky relationships with the legislature and derided them as “girly men” near the beginning of his first term in office.

In a show of frustration over his lack of success in getting a single vote for budgets he had proposed and delay in passage of the budget, Schwarzenegger had threatened to veto all bills in a press conference earlier this month. He then relented a bit in answer to a reporter’s question and indicated he would veto those sent to him before a budget was passed if they were non-essential.

The generic veto message given on many—it appears to be used on over half of the bills acted on since Wednesday night, is as follows:

"To the Members of the California State Assembly:

"I am returning Assembly Bill 3013 without my signature.

"The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end of the year’s legislative session. Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest priority for California. This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at this time.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger"

This stands in stark contrast to the tradition of veto messages giving reasons and some idea as to why the bill failed to become law.

This lead Anthony Wright of Health Access California, a coalition that represents a coalition of over200 health and consumer groups, to write: “Dept. of Stupid Vetoes...

“The Governor today vetoed SB 1633 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), a bill sponsored by Western Center for Law and Poverty (WCLP), and supported by Health Access California, Consumers Union, and many other consumer groups working together against medical debt.

“This consumer protection bill attempted to remedy a growing problem, as identified by legal services advocates around the state. Some dentists signing people up for credit to pay for their treatment, but a few are charging them (with interest!) before the patients gets the service, or other dubious practices (signing people up under anathesia!). With the good work of Elizabeth Landsberg and others at WCLP, a compromise was reached with the dentists association, it had Republican Senator Sam Aanestad, a dentist, as a co-author, and it passed the Senate 35-3, and the Assembly 79-0. Arbor Day legislation doesn't get votes like that.

“So what was the problem? Here's the veto message. [generic veto message as above]…

“That's the weakest excuse I've ever heard. The budget delay made me do it? What an abdication of responsibility.

“What's the real reason? Pique? Politics? Phooey.”

And so it is after the failed “Year of Health Care” proclaimed last year by our Governor and 2008’s “Year of Education” [in which calls by the Governor’s own appointed commission of experts for increased education funding were ignored]. This is the “Year of the Veto” and its ending is probably going to be even uglier if this pattern continues. Next year’s naming is still up for grabs.