Home>Articles>Reasons for Gubernatorial Vetoes in the 2022 Legislative Session

California Governor Gavin Newsom (then Lieutenant Governor) riding in the Golden State Warriors Parade in Oakland, CA, Jun. 12, 2018. (Photo: Amir Aziz/Shutterstock)

Reasons for Gubernatorial Vetoes in the 2022 Legislative Session

What were some of the key reasons for a bill being vetoed this year?

By Chris Micheli, September 30, 2022 6:03 pm

In concluding the 2022 California Legislative Session, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed over 170 bills he received this year. What were some of the key reasons for a bill being vetoed this year? The following are some of the major themes that were contained in the Governor’s veto messages:

Budgetary Concerns

“With our state facing lower-than-expected revenues over the first few months of this fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined when it comes to spending, particularly spending that is ongoing. We must prioritize existing obligations and priorities, including education, health care, public safety and safety-net programs.

“The Legislature sent measures with potential costs of well over $20 billion in one-time spending commitments and more than $10 billion in ongoing commitments not accounted for in the state budget. Bills with cost pressure, such as this measure, should be considered and accounted for in the annual budget process. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.”

“I am concerned that this bill could create significant one-time and ongoing costs in the millions of dollars for the departments that would play a role in implementing these programs.”

“Although this legislation is contingent upon appropriation, it creates tens of millions of dollars in General Fund cost pressures not accounted for in the budget.”

“The costs associated with this bill are unfunded and potentially significant.”

“This bill creates a new grant program duplicative of existing programs with millions of dollars a year in ongoing cost pressures not included in the budget.”

“I am concerned about the fiscal impact to implement the bill.”

Not Accepting Proposed Amendments

“…the California Civil Rights Department (CCRD) (formerly DFEH) is the appropriate state entity to take the lead in this effort per the amendments offered by my office.”

Premature or Additional Study Needed 

“I am directing the Department of Finance to conduct an analysis of the Program to identify any fiscal stability concerns and propose appropriate solutions for consideration. I am returning [this bill] without my signature until additional information on the viability of the program has been determined.”

“It is premature to lock a licensing structure in statute without considering both this work and forthcoming federal actions.”

“The effectiveness of these recently implemented safety measures has not been sufficiently assessed. More research is needed to better understand current safety measures and the risks.”

“The bill is premature as it is unknown how many community college part-time faculty will benefit…”

There Is a More Appropriate Venue

“…these are issues that should be evaluated through the judicial system with due process and a right to a hearing.”

“DGS is not the appropriate place to house this new position.”

Unnecessary Bill

“In addition to being unnecessary, this bill overlooks the fact that other officials serve on, or can designate individuals to serve on, the MHSOAC.”

“I am not convinced that the definition created in this bill is needed to continue the important work, in partnership with the Legislature, to ensure that our California family-owned businesses thrive.”

“The creation of a new system and process to address this issue is unnecessary at this time.”

“Accordingly, neither the program nor the fund that would be established by this bill are necessary to administer the funding authorized in the Budget.”

“I do not believe a statutory mandate requiring the Insurance Commissioner to evaluate proposed solutions is necessary.”

Technical Reasons

“While I agree with the aim of the proposal, this bill inadvertently overrides an unrelated provision of the final 2022-23 budget agreement contained in Assembly Bill 210, which amended the same code section.… I welcome another policy vehicle for this proposal that avoids this technical issue.”

Administrative Solution

“CalHR has already worked with state departments and the military on an administrative solution that provides clarity and issued new guidance to their Military Leave policy to prevent any further confusion. I am confident that this issue has been resolved making this bill unnecessary.”


“This bill is duplicative of existing law and results in ongoing General Fund costs not included in the budget.”

“…the partnership programs proposed under this bill would duplicate requirements for school-based behavioral health services being developed pursuant to the Children and Youth’s Behavioral Health Initiative”

“This issue was resolved in the final 2022-23 budget agreement.”

“A provision contained in a 2022-23 budget trailer bill, Assembly Bill 157, provides for the renewal of the same procurement method proposed by the author.”

“However, this bill duplicates existing HCA programs that provide funding and scholarships to support and expand the home health aide workforce throughout the state.”

“This bill creates a new grant program duplicative of existing programs with millions of dollars a year in ongoing cost pressures not included in the budget.”

“At best, this bill is redundant and therefore unnecessary.”

“I wholeheartedly share the author’s desire to tackle this crisis, but this bill is duplicative of efforts already underway.”

Infringement on State Agency Authority

“This could lead to conflicts with the statutory authority delegated to CalHR and the Legislature’s authority.”

“It is unclear how DHCS would successfully operationalize a system of simultaneous takebacks and quality payments.”

“This work is already underway, as envisioned in the Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan and the California State Transportation Agency’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.”

Overly Prescriptive Proposal

“I am concerned this bill is overly prescriptive and could conflict with the State’s goal to provide person-centered, data driven, and integrated services.”

“I am concerned this bill imposes confusing requirements in conflict with some of SB 54’s key provisions, which could unfairly result in duplicative fees and penalties for the same material.”

“I am concerned that this bill is overly prescriptive and could result in diverting resources away from other student programs that may be more effective in realizing the goals of the Compact.”

Not Targeted Enough

“This exemption is overly broad and fails to assist those disaster victims who are the most disadvantaged.”

“The provisions create an overly broad mandate that raises concerns for health and safety, security, and crime prevention.”

“Any consideration of an extension must be contemplated across all communities and across all types of facilities, in a holistic manner.”

Conflicts with Federal Law

“The bill imposes a reimbursement structure that conflicts with federal regulations, creating significant implementation challenges.”

Previous Vetoes

“These are the same concerns I had with previous, nearly-identical bills, SB 179 (20 19), and SB 76 (2021) which I also vetoed.”

“I encourage the author to continue discussions related to the expansion of provider types and changes to professional standards through a formal licensing scheme that includes clinical expertise and administrative oversight to address qualification standards for practitioners, to ensure equity and quality of core, and provide effective consumer protection, as I expressed when I vetoed a similar bill in 2019.”

Author’s Request

“Per the request of the author, I am returning Assembly Bill 2899 without my signature.”

“Per the request of the author and sponsor, I am vetoing this bill.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Latest posts by Chris Micheli (see all)
Spread the news:


One thought on “Reasons for Gubernatorial Vetoes in the 2022 Legislative Session

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.