In looking at Governor Gavin Newsom’s 66 bill vetoes during the 2021 Legislative Session, there are several themes from his messages to the Members of the Assembly and Senate about their bills and his reasons for issuing a veto. The following are just some of the major themes and are obviously not exhaustive:
The budget process should be used when bills result in costs to the state:
This comprehensive package, and the corresponding budget process, would be the appropriate venue to consider any continuous appropriation, such as that proposed in this bill.
This bill would create significant new costs not included in the 2021 Budget Act
Changes to the nature and duration of a grant program are more appropriately considered through the annual state budget process.
I am concerned that this bill will have potentially significant General Fund costs not contemplated in the Budget.
I cannot support a permanent extension of that policy at this time, as it will result in significant ongoing General Fund cost pressures in the tens of millions of dollars that were not included in the state’s current spending plan.
The Governor wants state agencies to work with the Legislature on a solution:
I am directing the Agency to work collaboratively with all relevant stakeholders to develop new policies for legislative consideration to address this issue.
I encourage the author to continue engaging my Administration to find innovative pathways to achieve our collective goal.
The legislation conflicts with or may create confusion with existing law:
There is significant overlap between this bill and Code section __, which may cause confusion for the regulated community.
This bill creates confusion with well-settled law, which is likely to result in increased litigation.
The bill lacks clarity in key areas which may render it subject to misinterpretation or a lack of enforceability.
A state agency is already addressing the issue:
Ongoing efforts by the Agency are better suited to achieve the intent of this bill.
This bill is duplicative of work already underway.
The bill is also duplicative of efforts already underway, creating unnecessary bureaucratic burden instead of material change.
The bill would interfere with the work of a state agency:
This bill would eliminate administrative flexibility to direct funding where it is needed most.
While the aims of this bill are noble and worthwhile, the work that would be duplicative of the work being done by DFEH.
The vast majority of the information that this legislation would require to be posted on department websites is already available.
The bill might conflict with federal law:
It would be imprudent to codify these requirements in state law in the event the federal agency revises them.
Consideration should be given to whether a patchwork of state and federal regulations is the most effective way to approach an issue of international magnitude.
The bill would impose a mandate on the private sector:
This bill’s extensive requirements would create a significant burden on California businesses – particularly small businesses.
The bill needs further study or refinement before becoming law:
This pilot is still underway through January 1, 2023, and, as such, we have not yet had the opportunity to sufficiently assess its impacts. It is premature to propose another similar exception
In light of the UC’s ongoing implementation of audit recommendations, this bill is premature.
The Governor previously vetoed the same or similar bill:
These are the same concerns I had with a previous, nearly-identical bill, which I also vetoed.
The Governor believes future discussion should take place before the bill is enacted:
I welcome discussions with the author and Legislature about a meaningful, comprehensive approach to addressing the need for this bill.
The state’s collective bargaining process should be used instead of a bill:
This bill should be addressed through the bargaining process.
Of course, there are other, sometimes detailed or unique reasons for Governor Newsom to veto a particular bill. Nonetheless, the above are the major themes of his bill vetoes, with the common reason is the fiscal cost of the proposed new law.