California School Boards Ass'n v. Brown
122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 674
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Proposition 1A added Cal. Const. art. XIII B, § 6, subd. (b)(1) requiring the state to fund or suspend unreimbursed mandates annually.
- Chapter 26.5 related services for special education became a reimbursable state mandate on local mental health agencies.
- 2010-2011 Budget Act included a lump-sum $216,336,000 for mandate reimbursements, including $132,941,000 for Chapter 26.5.
- Governor used line-item veto to delete the Chapter 26.5 portion, reducing total appropriation and effectively suspending the Chapter 26.5 mandate.
- Petitioners argued the Governor lacked authority to veto a specific mandate reimbursement within a lump-sum, contending only Legislature could decide funding or suspension.
- Court held the Governor had authority to veto, and the zeroing effect of the veto suspended the Chapter 26.5 mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Governor veto a specific mandate reimbursement within a lump-sum? | Petitioners: veto cannot target Chapter 26.5 specifically. | Brown: veto power extends to line-item within lump-sum appropriations. | Governor may veto specific components of a lump-sum appropriation. |
| Does XIII B, § 6(b)(1) grant exclusive funding/suspension power to the Legislature? | Legislature alone decides funding or suspension. | Voters intended state funding/suspension subject to Governor's veto. | Ambiguity resolved in favor of Governor’s veto power when interpreting the provision with constitutional constraints. |
| Does zeroing an appropriation via veto constitute substantive lawmaking? | Zero appropriation is a substantive suspension beyond veto power. | Zeroing is a budgetary mechanism with statutory suspension effect. | Zero appropriation has suspension effect; not an independent substantive act. |
| Is Government Code § 17581 compatible with the veto in this context? | Zeroing funds via veto would improperly create law outside veto power. | Zero appropriation is permissible and makes local agencies not implement the mandate. | Statutory framework compatible; veto yields a zero appropriation enforcing suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates, 150 Cal.App.4th 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (mandate reimbursement framework and purposes)
- County of San Diego v. State of California, 164 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (reimbursement mandate structure and local fiscal impact)
- Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (Cal. 1987) (limits and uses of gubernatorial veto power over appropriations)
- St. John’s Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 960 (Cal. 2010) (budgeting and single-subject concerns related to mandates)
- San Joaquin Helicopters v. Department of Forestry, 110 Cal.App.4th 1549 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (single-subject rule and budget bills)
- Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 53 Cal.3d 245 (Cal. 1991) (interpretation of legislature power vs. initiative processes)
- St. John’s Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger, 50 Cal.4th 960 (Cal. 2010) (state funding choices during economic stress)
- California School Boards Assn. v. State of California, 171 Cal.App.4th 1183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (prop. 1A interpretation and governor veto implications)