Judge wisely slaps down governor’s one-man rulings

With the nation’s focus on the election, Californians might have missed one of the most significant judicial decisions this year. On Monday, a Sutter County Superior Court judge sided with two Republican Assembly members and not only struck down one of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s election-related executive orders – but reined in his authority to issue other coronavirus-related edicts.

The preliminary ruling centered on Newsom’s March 4 executive order, which among other things mandated that the state automatically issue all California registered voters a mail ballot. This editorial board agreed with the goal of the order, which boosted voting opportunities during the pandemic, but argued that only the Legislature had the authority to pass such statutory reforms.

Judge Sarah Heckman also made that vital distinction. The governor’s office argued that the case was moot because the Legislature had followed up with similar legislation, but Heckman explained that the final law did not “entirely supersede the executive order.” She found that the lawmakers’ case isn’t moot – and has implications far beyond this one order.

Newsom says he has the authority under the California Emergency Services Act to “exercise legislative powers by unilaterally amending, altering, or changing existing statutory law or making new statutory law,” the judge noted.  The plaintiffs, GOP Assembly members James Gallagher of Yuba City and Kevin Kiley of Rocklin, countered that the state Constitution does not give him such broad authority and his actions amount to one-man rule.

It is a “critically important” issue for the courts to resolve, the judge added, given that the governor continues to issue orders. That’s exactly right. For example, Kiley has published a 123-page document detailing the executive actions the governor has taken since that March 4 order.

“It’s not disagreeing,” Gallagher told KCRA last month, noting that he and Kiley support the mail-in voting measures. “It’s ‘Hey, we live in a democracy, where there are three branches of government,’ right? And he’s not allowed to legislate.” That’s correct. Without limits, our state drifts into a sea of unchecked rule, which is the antithesis of the system that our founders created, with its diffusion of centralized power.

Related Articles

• If your candidate loses today, we will still be a great country tomorrow
• Incompetent governance could be GOP’s opportunity in California
• Prop. 21 would reduce quantity and quality of rental housing
• Democrats must stand up for working families and school choice
• Can American institutions survive anti-Trump backlash?: Walter Williams

It’s about time that a court imposed some oversight and limits. Heckman enjoined Newsom from “exercising any power” under the act “which amends, alters, or changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy.” It’s not yet a final verdict and the governor’s office is still evaluating its response. Since the beginning of the pandemic, other courts have approved the governor’s vast use of emergency powers.

So we’ll see how it plays out, although Californians should be encouraged by the decision. We applaud the Assembly members for doggedly pursuing this principled legal case, which is particularly important as coronavirus shutdowns drag on. Yes, governors need latitude in dealing with emergency situations, but there must be limits on their powers.

The order at the foundation of this case spotlights the degree to which the governor has claimed overly broad authority. There was plenty of time for the Legislature to act – and it did in fact pass a proper statute. In a free society, how laws are enacted matters as much as the specific laws that our leaders enact. We hope this ruling reminds us of that crucial fact.