A Deadline’s a Deadline

If a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s ruling is upheld, and it should be, state officials will no longer be able to blithely ignore the June 30 deadline for adopting a budget. They will no longer be able to finance the operation of the state in the absence of a budget or an emergency appropriation. The governor and legislative leaders will be pushed to buckle down and negotiate a quick end to the yearly stalemates.

For years, the governor and legislators have routinely winked at the Constitution not just once, in missing the deadline, but twice, in also spending money without authority. They finally got called on it in a lawsuit by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Assn., decided Tuesday by Superior Court Judge Robert O’Brien. His ruling was based on a state constitutional provision saying that the state may not spend money unless it is appropriated by the Legislature and the appropriation is signed into law by the governor.

The ability of the state to operate almost normally without a budget was what had allowed the governor and Legislature to break budget deadlines with relative impunity. This is no longer the case. Unfortunately, the decision came three weeks into the new fiscal year and thus created anxiety about payment for state employees and vital services. The gap was quickly filled by legislative approval of Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposal for a $19-billion appropriation to run the state until Aug. 5, which now must be considered the final deadline for passing the budget itself.

The temporary spending measure is appropriate this year only because of the timing of the ruling. The state should not get into the habit of using this device for future budget delays. Deadlines should mean something, and violation of deadlines should have consequences. The governor and lawmakers have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not mock it. A delay might be justified in an emergency, but most delays are the result of pure politics as Democrats and Republicans joust to win money for their favorite causes. That should no longer be tolerated by the people of California.

Wednesday’s scramble to appeal O’Brien’s ruling--and to comply with it should appeals fail--coincided with the announcement of the results of a four-year study by the California Citizens Budget Commission. Not surprisingly, the recommendations were similar to those of the California Constitution Revision Commission and other citizen groups, most notably in the call for a constitutional amendment to allow passage of the budget by a majority vote. California is one of just two states to require a two-thirds margin for budget passage, which allows a minority to block budget approval, a major source of delay.

The report lent encouragement to Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch), whose proposed amendment, ACA 26, currently is stalled in committee. It would provide for a majority-vote budget and needed reforms. Torlakson said he might try to move the measure out of committee next week. The Legislature should seize this opportunity to approve this overdue reform. The amendment would not eliminate the possibility of budget deadlocks, but it would considerably streamline the process and eliminate the ability of a minority to cause undue political mischief.