After a lawsuit was filed last week by several University of
California students and social activists against the
governor’s administration, various legislative members have
begun to take sides.
The lawsuit, filed last Wednesday in part by the University of
California Students Association, accused Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
of acting unconstitutionally in regard to the budget.
The lawsuit was also filed on behalf of the Equal Justice
Society and Californians for Justice. It claimed the governor had
illegally reduced the vehicle license fee, which consequently
created a hole in the budget.
To remedy this deficit, the administration implemented $148
million in “emergency” cuts, including extensive cuts
to the UC. Such action was also claimed illegal by the plaintiffs
because the governor had supposedly bypassed the
Legislature’s jurisdiction.
Assemblyman Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, who supports the
governor’s administration in the case, said Schwarzenegger
had “rescinded the illegal $4 billion car tax that had been
put in place by his predecessor, Gov. Davis,” and as a
result, Schwarzenegger had been forced to use money from the
state’s General Fund to pay back the cities and counties.
State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, said the car tax
instituted by Davis was based on a law originally signed by former
Gov. Pete Wilson, thus making the actions of Schwarzenegger and not
those of Davis, illegal.
Despite contrary opinions, legislators are not going to play any
direct role in the lawsuit.
Because the Legislature originally created the laws that were
allegedly broken by either Davis or Schwarzenegger, legislators
themselves are unable to sign on to the suit.
“It’s not appropriate for the Legislature or any
individual legislator to be involved with the lawsuit,” Kuehl
said. “We passed the original law.”
Assemblymembers are finding other methods of joining the
struggle. Some are encouraging their constituents and others they
can influence to become directly involved.
State Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, is encouraging cities and
counties to support the lawsuit because the governor wants to take
even more from cities and counties, said spokesman Robert
Oakes.
Torlakson suggested proponents of the suit should file amicus
curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs in support of
the litigation.
“This creates a broader base and makes the argument
stronger the more significant plaintiffs you have behind it,”
Oakes said.
Thus far, no amicus curiae briefs have been filed because they
may not be filed until the California Supreme Court grants the case
petition for a writ of mandate. There is currently no date set
before which the court must act.
Though supportive of the lawsuit, some Democratic legislators
have their hands tied for now. The most they say they are able to
do is gather public support for the case.
“It does help the public see the correctness of the
student association’s actions,” Kuehl said.
Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, also said it was important that
opinions are voiced to draw the involvement of the public. Keene
also serves as the vice chair of the state Assembly’s
Committee on Budget.
“Public discourse is very good,” Keene said.
“We live in a participatory democracy; it is good that people
discuss their opinions.”
Although some are skeptical as to whether the lawsuit will even
be heard in the California Supreme Court, the plaintiffs of the
lawsuit are hopeful.
“(Legislative members’) voicing their opinions
doesn’t hurt by any stretch,” said Warrington Parker
III, one of the lawyers representing the petitioners. “I
don’t know that it will have any effect, but I think the
lawsuit has strong legal merit.”