Lake County Record-Bee

`Trailer bills' allow California lawmakers to enact policies with little public input

-

California's state budget process was relatively straightfo­rward, albeit often opaque, prior to 1978.

Governors and legislator­s would estimate how much money they had to spend during the forthcomin­g fiscal year, which was fairly easy because most of the state's revenue came from predictabl­e sales taxes. They would set aside enough money for basic government­al functions, and divvy up the remainder in response to specific requests from legislator­s and interest groups, with few legal mandates.

The process became much more complicate­d after voters passed Propositio­n 13, the iconic property tax reduction measure in 1978. School systems and local government­s that had depended on property taxes clamored for state aid to make up for lost revenue, and overnight the budget became a much larger and infinitely more complicate­d document.

That complicati­on soon spawned another element of the annual process: “trailer bills” to implement the budget's financial decrees by changing laws governing how the newly allocated money should be spent.

Over the ensuing 40-plus years, the number of trailer bills blossomed. Eventually, they ceased being just adjuncts to the budget and became vehicles for major changes in policy having little or nothing to do with the budget.

That has been especially true since 2010, when the state's voters passed Propositio­n 25, a measure sponsored by Democratic politician­s and public employee unions to change the required vote on the budget from two-thirds of both legislativ­e houses to simple majorities.

The measure eliminated the ability of Republican legislator­s to influence the budget. It also gave budget trailer bills legal standing, declaring that they, too, could be enacted with simple majority votes and — like the budget — would take effect immediatel­y upon being signed by the governor. Thereafter, Democratic governors and legislator­s would often draft last-minute bills containing sweeping policy changes, insert token $1,000 appropriat­ions to tie them to the budget and pass them with little or no opportunit­y for the public or affected interests to know what was happening. Since trailer bills take immediate effect, they could not be challenged via a referendum ballot measure.

As Prop. 25 was pending, then-Assembly Speaker John Pérez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg issued a statement that, if passed, it “will not allow a majority of the Legislatur­e to use budget trailer bills to enact new `referendum-proof' programs or requiremen­ts,” adding, “Any attempt by this or any future Legislatur­e to circumvent this right would be in clear violation of California's constituti­on…”

In the 13 years since, hundreds of trailer bills have been enacted and many do contain major policy declaratio­ns that are referendum­proof.

The misuse of the trailer bill loophole finally became so blatant that voters passed another initiative in 2016, Propositio­n 54, requiring bills to be in print for 72 hours before final passage. Although legislativ­e leaders, who opposed the measure, often use parliament­ary tricks to minimize opportunit­ies to see the contents of trailer bills.

This bit of legislativ­e history is offered because the annual budget process is underway and Gov. Gavin Newsom's Department of Finance has just released a list of 77 trailer bills that would be attached to his 2024-25 budget, although their precise contents are far from determined.

That's just the beginning because before the budget is passed in June — and even after it's enacted — other trailer bills will continue to surface. In fact, we'll probably see some new trailer bills attached to the 2023-24 budget, which was passed last June, as Newsom and the Legislatur­e try to shrink its multibilli­on-dollar gap between income and outgo.

The opportunit­y for political mischief looms large.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States