The problem with states of emergency

There is a structural problem in allowing government officials to decide when they are going to give up their unlimited emergency powers.

Last October, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that the COVID-19 state of emergency he declared on March 4, 2020, was at last ending — but not until February 28, 2023.

Local officials are exercising the same discretion to decide when they will allow a return to the normal limits on government power.

For example, the city of

Los Angeles ended its state of emergency on February 1, but the county of Los Angeles did not. Janice Hahn, chair of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, told FOX 11 news that she agreed “it's time for us to lift ours as well, there is no need to have a COVID emergency any more, and I plan to ask my colleagues at the next board meeting to agree to lift ours as well.”

She added, “Hopefully we'll end it at the end of March.”

Hopefully? Elected officials should not have complete discretion over when they will relinquish emergency powers.

The California Emergency Services Act states, “The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end.”

With no one declaring an end to the emergency, Californians were left vulnerable to potential abuses of power.

For example, the state of emergency has allowed the suspension of safeguards around the awarding of government contracts, and fraudulent spending in connection with COVID-19 programs has been flagged over and over again by investigators.

“A CapRadio investigation found an overlap of at least a half-dozen companies that made substantial contributions to Newsom and received no-bid contracts from the state, influential appointments, or other opportunities related to the state's pandemic response,” reported CapRadio in 2021.

These contracts ranged from $2 million to over $1 billion. Were these contracts appropriately granted? Were they the best use of taxpayer money? Were they ethical?

These are the sort of questions emergency powers sweep under the rug.

Even if one grants that there are practical benefits to allowing states of emergency to be declared, something is obviously wrong when an “emergency” can drag on for years without end. And even worse, without the system of checksand-balances working to even bother to push back and establish whether conditions warrant an indefinite state of emergency.

It suspends the system of government we are supposed to have. If a problem festers for years, that calls for deliberate action according to debates and agreed upon legislative efforts, not indefinite states of emergency.

What may be needed is a state constitutional amendment to require an automatic end to declared emergencies at a set interval, such as 30 days, unless specifically reauthorized and documented as necessary under the same statutory requirements that justified it in the first place.

Years-long emergencies can't become a tool to help political allies or to implement policies and programs that lack the support to pass through the regular legislative process.

That's an abuse of power.