![]() |
| Office of the Chancellor / Public Affairs |
Friday, July 11, 2003
|
Oakland Tribune 7-11-03 Davis eyes Nevada ruling on budget |
|
|
Hours after Nevada's governor won an order from that state's highest court forcing lawmakers to enact a spending plan and proposed tax hikes, California Gov. Gray Davis' administration disclosed Thursday it is eyeing the same strategy. The Nevada Supreme Court -- ruling 6-1 on a dispute arising from a budget crisis similar to the one plaguing California -- decided that Nevada lawmakers' constitutional duty to fund education outweighed the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority vote to increase taxes. The two-thirds vote requirement on tax hikes has triggered political gridlock in deficit-ridden Nevada, the same as it has in California, which is facing a much larger $38 billion budget gap. A similar court ruling in California would allow the dominant Democratic lawmakers to use simple-majority votes to adopt Davis' proposed tax hikes, aimed at blunting program cuts, without the handful of Republican votes they currently need. The GOP flatly opposes increases in taxes and wants more budget cuts. After the legal victory by Nevada's Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, there were indications California's Democratic governor might reverse the stance he took last week when Guinn petitioned the court and instead follow the Nevada's governor's lead at some point. "This is something that we could possibly look at in the future," Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said in an interview. "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it." But Maviglio said the Davis administration is "a long way" from taking similar action, citing a higher level of cooperation from legislative leaders than Nevada's governor experienced and noting Nevada lawmakers adjourned without taking action. Legal advisers to the California Legislature, which isn't scheduled to adjourn until September, have already concluded the avenue taken by Guinn is open to Davis or others since the matter has never been tested in court here. Analysts said the move might be appearing more attractive to Davis because budget gridlock is adding to Davis' political woes as he faces a GOP-led recall effort. California lawmakers failed to meet their June 15 constitutional deadline for passing a budget for the 2003-04 fiscal year that began July 1 and there is still no resolution in sight. Pressure is mounting amid predictions of looming cutbacks in government services. In Nevada, Guinn hailed the court ruling, which he said "leaves no doubt that legislators must finish their work without further delay." "Legislators have now had almost six months to decide on a proper level of funding for the budget, and an equal amount of time to decide how to pay for it," he said. Some of that state's lawmakers -- on both sides of the aisle -- harshly criticized the ruling, but Nevada legislators are expected to return Monday to resume their special session. Guinn, who favors higher taxes, asked the court last week to force Nevada lawmakers to meet a "constitutional responsibility" to fund education after the legislature deadlocked on financing a proposed $5 billion budget for the two-year period that began July 1. The impasse over new taxes has persisted since the June 2 end of the regular session and through two ensuing special sessions. Tax proposals considered by legislators have ranged from about $700 million to nearly $1 billion. At one point, the Nevada Assembly, controlled by Democrats, fell one vote short of passing a tax-hike package because some Republicans want more budget cuts. But the Nevada Supreme Court said that state's two-thirds requirement for tax increases "must yield" when the higher voting threshold "in effect denies the public its expectation of access to public education." School officials had said they would run out of money next month without legislative action. "It is a waste of public resources to simply tell the legislature to forge on and deliberate and negotiate further, since that body has failed to perform its constitutionally required function," the court said in a decision written by Chief Justice Deborah Agosti. Wires services contributed to this report.
|
|
|
These news clips are provided by the Public Affairs Department of The California State University. They are intended for the internal use of The California State University system and should not be redistributed. Questions and submissions may be sent to publicaffairs@calstate.edu. |
|