With a Monday deadline, Gavin Newsom is vetoing 1 in 5 bills. Here’s why

As the final hours approach before Monday’s midnight deadline, Gov. Gavin Newsom will have to decide whether to sign or veto about 30 bills still on his desk.

As of Sunday evening, he had blocked 181 of the roughly 960 measures he had taken action on since the Legislature adjourned Aug. 31, or 19 percent — and nearly 16 percent of all bills passed this year by the Legislative Assembly. That compares to a 15% veto rate in 2023, when he blocked 156 bills. He had a similar veto percentage in 2022, including on some major bills. In 2021, he vetoed it by less than 8%.

Although the Legislature can override vetoes, it requires a two-thirds vote in the Assembly and Senate, which has not happened since 1979. Governors can also allow bills to become law without their signature , but it doesn’t happen very often. either.

Learn more: These are the 2024 California bills that Gavin Newsom signed into law and the ones he vetoed.

“In most cases, lawmakers are trying to work with the governor and his administration to try to address the concerns in the veto message, instead of just saying their approach is the right one,” said veteran lobbyist Chris Micheli.

On some high-profile and controversial bills, no matter what Newsom says publicly about why he vetoed it, there may be a fair amount of politics involved — as well as the push and pull of various constituencies. interest.

“Whether it is an election year or not, political considerations will impact not only legislation going through the legislative process, but also whether or not a bill results in a signature or a veto from the governor,” Micheli said. “But it’s a small number in my estimation.”

A spokesperson for Newsom said the veto messages speak for themselves.

Here are the main reasons given by Newsom to justify his veto. (When he gives multiple reasons, it counts in all categories.)

It’s bad policy

Newsom cited political issues as the reason he vetoed about 37% of bills — the second-largest category. These are bills he didn’t agree with or whose language was too broad.

For example, Senate Bill 804 would have allowed community service officers to testify during preliminary hearings. In the governor’s veto message, he wrote that the bill raises concerns about “the reliability of evidence presented at a critical stage of criminal proceedings.”

SB 1170 would have allowed candidates to use campaign funds to address mental health-related issues that arise during a campaign, but Newsom wrote that it could allow other changes in the use of campaign funds that go “beyond what a reasonable donor would expect.”

SB 1432 aimed to allow hospitals to request an additional five years to meet earthquake safety standards. “Following an earthquake, not only would these hospitals be unable to provide emergency care to victims, but they would also need to divert emergency response efforts to quickly evacuate and transfer patients to other establishments,” Newsom said in his veto message. .

And AB 2513 would have made California the first state to require warning labels on gas stoves about the air pollutants they can release. In his veto message, Newsom said it was too “prescriptive.” “This static approach fails to enable timely updates to labeling content that should align with the latest science so that consumers are accurately informed about their purchases,” he added.

This would weigh on the budget

For the third year in a row, the most common reason Newsom gave for vetoing a bill was budget concerns — about 40%.

Newsom and the Legislature have had to make deep cuts to some programs and dip into state reserves to fill the $56 billion budget hole over the next two years. The deficit also played a central role in decisions during the session to shelve hundreds of bills. The state’s financial crisis was the cause of 41 percent of vetoes last year, according to Micheli.

“Each governor and his staff will consider the policy implications. Second, the budgetary implications,” Micheli said. “Negative budgetary consideration this year, last year and the year before was a leading factor in many cases.”

For example, the governor vetoed AB 1840, which would have allowed undocumented applicants to apply for a homebuyer assistance program. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that there is “limited funding” available and that this change should be reflected in the state budget.

Another bill Newsom rejected because of the budget was AB 544, which would have provided funding for three counties to test in-person voting in jails.

But even if an author tries to address their bill in the budget, it may not be enough. Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Van Nuys Democrat, secured $5 million for SB 954, which would have required public high schools to provide condoms to students.

Newsom vetoed the bill, writing that “one-time funding does not adequately address the fiscal concerns associated with this bill.”

It may not be legal

For a few bills so far, Newsom has said the courts would have to decide an issue before giving his signature.

His second veto of a bill relating to undocumented Californians, SB 2586, would have allowed undocumented students to work on campus. In his message, Newsom wrote that “it is essential that the courts consider the legality of such a policy and the new legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding.”

It is up to local authorities to decide

Sometimes Newsom vetoes a bill because it’s a problem that could be solved at the local level.

For example, AB 1950 would have created a state task force to seek reparations for displaced people in the Chavez Ravine area of ​​Los Angeles. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that this is “an issue best resolved by the stakeholders closest to the Chavez Ravine community.”

It is up to national leaders to decide

Other times, Newsom says a problem is best left to the federal government.

He vetoed SB 961, which would have mandated speed warning technology in new vehicles, starting in 2030. In his veto message, he said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration already regulates the standards vehicle safety, “and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations” and that the agency is already studying such systems, “and that imposing mandates at the state level at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments.”

Republican lawmakers sought the veto, saying “Californians don’t need Big Brother telling them how to drive.” But the bill’s author, Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, called the veto “a setback for highway safety at a time when Californians feel extremely unsafe.”

It’s not necessary

Newsom has vetoed another large percentage of bills because he views them as unnecessary given the work the state is already doing on an issue.

SB 936 would have required Caltrans to conduct a highway safety study and propose an improvement plan. In Newsom’s message, he wrote that Caltrans already works on highway safety, so the bill would be redundant.

Despite the governor’s explanation of Caltrans’ current efforts, the bill’s author, Sen. Kelly Seyarto, Republican of Murrieta, wrote in a press release that he is “deeply disappointed by the veto, as it sends the message that road safety is not a priority. at a time when deaths are increasing.

AB 2903 would have required state homelessness programs to more closely track and report spending data. However, Newsom wrote in his veto message that he had already signed legislation that strengthens reporting requirements for California’s two largest programs.

That didn’t satisfy the bill’s author, Assemblyman Josh Hoover, a Republican from Folsom. “Governor Newsom is doubling down on homelessness,” Hoover posted on State.”

It’s too early

Newsom called another small portion of bills “premature,” such as SB 1220, which would have banned agencies from equipping call centers with AI or automated decision-making systems if it took away a human job .

Last year, Newsom signed an executive order for the state to evaluate how to use AI in its workforce, so the bill would create guidelines before those in the executive order are announced, a -he wrote in his veto message.

SB 1050 would have allowed Californians whose land was taken from them or their families for racist reasons to seek compensation. But implementing the bill is “impossible,” according to Newsom, because there is no agency to do so.