Why Did the Current Year Budget Bill Junior Require an Urgency Clause?

Why does the Budget Bill Junior for the 2026 Act (SB 113) require an urgency clause when all budget-related bills take effect immediately pursuant to Proposition 25?

The concern is that a number of provisions of the Budget Bill Junior is not limited to funding for the “usual current expenses of the state,” which is one of five exceptions for bills to be passed after August 31 of the even-numbered year of the California Legislative Session.

A landmark Third District Court of Appeal decision gives us limited guidance. In McClure v. Nye (1913) 22 Cal.App 248, the appellate court provided guidance on the budget process, direct democracy, and separation of powers.

First, the appeals court made clear that the judiciary determines what the law means. So, even when the Legislature declares that its enactment is constitutional or an urgency, it is not binding on the courts and they will make their own determination.  According to the opinion,“The question before us is simply one of construction or interpretation of an act of the Legislature and of a provision of the Constitution, and that is a judicial question.”

Second, the appellate court noted that bills that take immediate effect, such as urgency statutes, are exempt from the people’s referendum power. As a result, the judiciary is going to generally protect the right of referendum and look closely at legislative efforts to expand the use of bills that take effect immediately.

Finally, the court took a look at the “usual current expenses” language for the four types of bills that take effect immediately and can be considered after August 31 in the second year of Session. Article IV, Section 8(c)(3) states: “Statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment.”

What are “usual current expenses of the State?” Here the appeals court said that capital outlays (such as constructing buildings) or extraordinary expenses (such as paying to transport Civil War veterans to a reunion in Gettysburg) are not “usual current” expenses and therefore cannot take immediate effect under that clause of the state Constitution.

In most years, this is a not an issue. However, in the second year of the two-year Session (i.e., the even-numbered year), only five types of bills can be considered after August 31 pursuant to Article IV, Section 10(c), which provides, in part: “No bill may be passed by either house on or after September 1 of an even-numbered year except statutes calling elections, statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current expenses of the State, and urgency statutes, and bills passed after being vetoed by the Governor.”

As a result, the attorneys in the Office of Legislative Counsel needed to examine the contents of the Budget Bill Junior to determine whether it contains funding for “usual current expenses,” in which case it could be considered on September 1. If the funding in the BBJ is not for those types of expenses, then the BBJ would not qualify for the exemption and could not be considered on September 1.

Perhaps the determination was made that all of the expenditures in the BBJ are not for usual current expenses or, perhaps in an abundance of caution, an urgency clause was added to the bill to ensure that it clearly falls within one of the specified exemptions for consideration after August 31. Either way, the BBJ contains an urgency clause, which requires a 2/3 vote for passage in both houses, and the bill can be properly considered on September 1.