The California state Supreme Court refused to consider the lawsuit brought against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by the UC Student Association, Californians for Justice and several UC students, referring the case to the California Superior Court without prejudice. Justice Joyce Kennard dissented, believing that the Supreme Court should consider the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs have been seeking a ruling against Schwarzenegger’s $148 million mid-year budget cuts to the UC and CSU systems and his administration’s rolling back of the vehicle license fee increase implemented by former Gov. Gray Davis.
The plaintiffs argue that the California Revenue and Tax Code allows unilateral budget reductions by the governor only if there is a budget issue that is unanticipated and unavoidable. The lawsuit filed in the state Supreme Court contends that the current budget crisis was caused by Schwarzenegger’s decision to roll back the vehicle license fee, and therefore both anticipated and avoidable. The vehicle license fee hike would have increased revenues by $4 billion.
The UCSA sent a letter to the state attorney general’s office on Feb. 23 requesting additional information regarding the implementation of the governor’s mid-year cuts. The plaintiffs have not yet decided whether or not to file in Superior Court.
“We submitted a letter to the attorney general’s office to confirm that the mid-year budget cuts were going forward, and we haven’t received a response,” said Warrington Parker III, the lawyer representing UCSA. “A critical factor is whether the mid-year budget cuts are going forward and whether they will require legislative approval.”
Parker said that if the mid-year cuts are going forward but do not require legislative approval, the plaintiffs’ best option is to file in the Superior Court. If the cuts are going forward and the governor seeks legislative approval, Parker said, the plaintiffs “may seek some other relief.”
Parker doesn’t believe that the state Supreme Court’s rejection significantly impacts the lawsuit’s chances of success, citing the Attorney General’s response as the critical factor in the case at this point. The plaintiffs expect a response by Feb. 27 and will meet to discuss their options after a response is received.
“The rejection does not bear on our chances for success because the California Supreme Court has explicitly provided that we can file in Superior Court,” Parker said. “The chances for success depend a lot on the responses to our letters.”
UCSA Executive Director Elizabeth Geyer believes that the lawsuit has already succeeded in influencing Schwarzenegger’s policy.
“[There are indications that] the governor has actually changed his position and is submitting his cuts to the legislature,” Geyer said. “So it would significantly affect our next steps if it was finally official that the governor is retracting his unilateral cuts and submitting them to the legislature. It could possibly mean that we will not re-file in a lower court because we would consider that a significant victory.”
According to Geyer, if the reduction will be considered by the legislature and the case is not re-filed in Superior Court, then the UCSA will initiate lobbying efforts targeting the state assembly, including mailing and calling campaigns.
“We would make sure that the members of the legislature knew that we were strongly opposed to the cuts,” Geyer said.
The mid-year budget reductions included the elimination of state funding for UC and CSU K-12 outreach programs and major reductions to the UC Institute for Labor and Employment. The plaintiffs cited the elimination of support for outreach programs as the main impetus for their lawsuit.
