Watch the Steinberg Statement on Legal Challenge to Preserve Constitutional Seperation of Powers
(Sacramento) – Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg issued the following statement explaining the legal challenge filed to preserve the separation of powers codified in the California Constitution:
“This afternoon, the Speaker and I filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court, challenging the State Controller’s ability to determine whether or not the state budget is balanced.
“Our lawsuit affirmatively and intentionally does not seek back pay. It does, however, ask the court to clarify the complex but vital separation of powers questions raised by the Controller’s actions last June.
“Today’s action should not be mistaken for anything other than what it represents – aside from any Governor’s constitutional authority to sign, veto, or line-item veto budgets - neither the Governor nor any member of the Executive branch may brandish the threat of withholding legislative pay, because they disagree with the decisions made by the Legislative branch.
“Proposition 25, passed by the voters in 2010, allows that remedy in just one instance: where the budget is late.
“This is not the beginning of a battle with the Governor and Controller. This case will proceed quietly – our time and efforts will be spent focusing on this year’s budget, job creation, pension reform, and the myriad other challenges and opportunities facing Californians. Some may question “why now?”, “what are the politics?”, “what’s going to be the short-term reaction?”
“The Speaker and I are temporary stewards of these leadership positions. We have an obligation to govern now and we have an obligation to stand and defend the Legislative branch of government and its authority for the years and decades ahead, when others occupy these positions.
“Imagine the mischief five years from now, or 10 years from now, if a controller is from a different political party than the majority party and wants to leverage the budget for his or her own partisan or political purposes. There are many other potential examples.
“We need to settle this issue and put it behind us. That’s why we’re asking the court to make its findings to sort out the respective authorities of the Legislature and the Controller. We have great confidence that the court will clarify and ensure that our system maintains its proper checks and balances.”
###
