ARTICLE
Welcome to the Fall of 2024 — with the turn of the calendar to October — we are greeted with Santa Cruz summer weather where we are hitting triple-digit temps throughout the Central Coast. I trust you are finding a shade tree, a cold drink to stay hydrated, and finding a cool spot for the next few days. October 1 also marks the end of the California legislative session. While the legislature adjourned on August 31, 2024, members of the legislature, lobbyists, and advocacy groups waited until the ink in Governor Newsom’s pen ran dry before cheering or pouting. As of last week, the Governor had cleared from his desk nearly 1,000 bills, and he vetoed 183. That’s a veto rate of about 18% of the bills he acted on after the Legislature adjourned (and about 16% of the 1,200 bills passed this year). That compares to a 15% veto rate in 2023, when he blocked 156 bills. He had a similar veto percentage in 2022, including some significant bills. In 2021, he vetoed fewer than 8%. While the Legislature can override vetoes, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate, which hasn’t happened since 1979. Governors can also allow bills to become law without their signature, but that doesn’t occur very often, either. This year's veto statistics are fascinating, as they show how the governor and his Democratic legislative colleagues control almost every aspect of the legislative and budgeting process. However, they don’t always see eye to eye on every piece of legislation. The minority party in Sacramento is essentially shut out from the legislative debate; even Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher of Chico gave the governor credit for blocking “some pretty bad/stupid” bills, citing Senate Bill 961, which would have mandated speed warning tech in new vehicles, starting in 2030. What are the reasons for the higher percentage of vetoes by the Governor compared to previous years? There can be many reasons, but three that come to the top of the list are: The state’s financial situation where the Governor and the Legislature threw together a final budget with budget gimmicks, moving some reserve funds to pay for one-time expenses and good ole belt tightening reducing expenses without financially crippling the neediest citizens. This leads to the Governor and his legislative team dissecting each bill with a financial eye before signing or vetoing a bill. Of course, the governor signed new legislation, and all you need to do is look to our local state representatives’ websites, which applaud the governor for signing their bills. Just take a quick review of our local legislator's websites: Assemblymember Gail Pellerin: https://a28.asmdc.org/; Assemblymember Dawn Addis: https://a30.asmdc.org/press-releases/20240925-governor-signs-addis-bill-empower-communities-against-big-oil; State Senator John Laird: https://sd17.senate.ca.gov/ lists four legislative wins. A couple of the high-profile pieces of legislation that the Governor vetoed are SB 1047 (Wiener). Newsom vetoed the most ambitious—and contentious—bill approved by the Legislature this year to regulate artificial intelligence. The legislation would have required testing of AI models to determine whether they would likely lead to mass death, endanger public infrastructure, or enable severe cyberattacks. In his veto letter, Newsom criticized the bill for potentially “curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.” He also said it would have needlessly regulated AI used in low-risk situations and that it was written without enough research. “A California-only approach may well be warranted — especially absent federal action by Congress — but it must be based on empirical evidence and science,” he wrote. The bill applied only to the costliest AI models, needing $100 million or more to develop, and Newsom objected to that threshold, saying cheaper tech can still be harmful. The governor wrote that he will work to “find the appropriate path forward, including legislation and regulation” to address AI risks. Opponents argued that the bill would harm the state economy and AI industry. They included Google, Meta, OpenAI, and eight members of the California congressional delegation. The state Chamber of Commerce praised the veto, saying the legislation would put “California’s place as the global hub of innovation at tremendous risk.” The bill’s sponsor, San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener Wiener, called the veto “a missed opportunity for California to once again lead on innovative tech regulation” and protect public safety. According to one poll, his bill’s supporters include 59% of California voters, along with billionaire Elon Musk, the Screen Actors Guild, the Service Employees International Union, the National Organization for Women, and whistleblowers who worked at companies that make AI. 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 falls short in enabling timely updates to the labeling content that should align with the latest scientific knowledge so that consumers are accurately informed about their purchases,” he added. SB 984 This bill would require the Judicial Council and California State University (CSU) to each identify and select a minimum of three major construction projects and subject those projects to a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) beginning January 1, 2027. The Governor said, “While I am generally supportive of PLAs as an option for public works projects, the new requirements proposed in this bill could result in additional cost pressures that were not accounted for in this year's budget. This year, in partnership with the Legislature, my Administration has enacted a balanced budget that avoids deep program cuts to vital services and protects investments in education, health care, climate, public safety, housing, and social service programs that millions of Californians rely on. It is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications not included in the budget, such as this measure. The real concern is clearly embedded in his message that the cost of a public sector project with a PLA is exponentially higher than a project without a PLA. We have mentioned this issue before about PLA proposals in Santa Cruz County, the City of Santa Cruz, and across the Central Coast. We have noted that a majority of the construction jobs in our region are by non-union companies, many of whom are small family-owned. While the Governor’s message speaks to the budget in the short term, there is consistent reporting that a PLA limits local non-union construction companies from participating in public sector projects. The Chamber encourages local governments to review the past PLA only projects and determine if this is the right direction to help support local small businesses.
Welcome to the Fall of 2024 — with the turn of the calendar to October — we are greeted with Santa Cruz summer weather where we are hitting triple-digit temps throughout the Central Coast. I trust you are finding a shade tree, a cold drink to stay hydrated, and finding a cool spot for the next few days.
October 1 also marks the end of the California legislative session. While the legislature adjourned on August 31, 2024, members of the legislature, lobbyists, and advocacy groups waited until the ink in Governor Newsom’s pen ran dry before cheering or pouting. As of last week, the Governor had cleared from his desk nearly 1,000 bills, and he vetoed 183. That’s a veto rate of about 18% of the bills he acted on after the Legislature adjourned (and about 16% of the 1,200 bills passed this year). That compares to a 15% veto rate in 2023, when he blocked 156 bills. He had a similar veto percentage in 2022, including some significant bills. In 2021, he vetoed fewer than 8%.
While the Legislature can override vetoes, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate, which hasn’t happened since 1979. Governors can also allow bills to become law without their signature, but that doesn’t occur very often, either. This year's veto statistics are fascinating, as they show how the governor and his Democratic legislative colleagues control almost every aspect of the legislative and budgeting process. However, they don’t always see eye to eye on every piece of legislation.
The minority party in Sacramento is essentially shut out from the legislative debate; even Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher of Chico gave the governor credit for blocking “some pretty bad/stupid” bills, citing Senate Bill 961, which would have mandated speed warning tech in new vehicles, starting in 2030.
What are the reasons for the higher percentage of vetoes by the Governor compared to previous years? There can be many reasons, but three that come to the top of the list are: The state’s financial situation where the Governor and the Legislature threw together a final budget with budget gimmicks, moving some reserve funds to pay for one-time expenses and good ole belt tightening reducing expenses without financially crippling the neediest citizens. This leads to the Governor and his legislative team dissecting each bill with a financial eye before signing or vetoing a bill.
Of course, the governor signed new legislation, and all you need to do is look to our local state representatives’ websites, which applaud the governor for signing their bills. Just take a quick review of our local legislator's websites: Assemblymember Gail Pellerin: https://a28.asmdc.org/; Assemblymember Dawn Addis: https://a30.asmdc.org/press-releases/20240925-governor-signs-addis-bill-empower-communities-against-big-oil; State Senator John Laird: https://sd17.senate.ca.gov/ lists four legislative wins.
A couple of the high-profile pieces of legislation that the Governor vetoed are SB 1047 (Wiener). Newsom vetoed the most ambitious—and contentious—bill approved by the Legislature this year to regulate artificial intelligence. The legislation would have required testing of AI models to determine whether they would likely lead to mass death, endanger public infrastructure, or enable severe cyberattacks.
In his veto letter, Newsom criticized the bill for potentially “curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.” He also said it would have needlessly regulated AI used in low-risk situations and that it was written without enough research. “A California-only approach may well be warranted — especially absent federal action by Congress — but it must be based on empirical evidence and science,” he wrote. The bill applied only to the costliest AI models, needing $100 million or more to develop, and Newsom objected to that threshold, saying cheaper tech can still be harmful.
The governor wrote that he will work to “find the appropriate path forward, including legislation and regulation” to address AI risks. Opponents argued that the bill would harm the state economy and AI industry. They included Google, Meta, OpenAI, and eight members of the California congressional delegation. The state Chamber of Commerce praised the veto, saying the legislation would put “California’s place as the global hub of innovation at tremendous risk.”
The bill’s sponsor, San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener Wiener, called the veto “a missed opportunity for California to once again lead on innovative tech regulation” and protect public safety. According to one poll, his bill’s supporters include 59% of California voters, along with billionaire Elon Musk, the Screen Actors Guild, the Service Employees International Union, the National Organization for Women, and whistleblowers who worked at companies that make AI. 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 falls short in enabling timely updates to the labeling content that should align with the latest scientific knowledge so that consumers are accurately informed about their purchases,” he added.
SB 984 This bill would require the Judicial Council and California State University (CSU) to each identify and select a minimum of three major construction projects and subject those projects to a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) beginning January 1, 2027.
The Governor said, “While I am generally supportive of PLAs as an option for public works projects, the new requirements proposed in this bill could result in additional cost pressures that were not accounted for in this year's budget. This year, in partnership with the Legislature, my Administration has enacted a balanced budget that avoids deep program cuts to vital services and protects investments in education, health care, climate, public safety, housing, and social service programs that millions of Californians rely on. It is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications not included in the budget, such as this measure.
The real concern is clearly embedded in his message that the cost of a public sector project with a PLA is exponentially higher than a project without a PLA. We have mentioned this issue before about PLA proposals in Santa Cruz County, the City of Santa Cruz, and across the Central Coast. We have noted that a majority of the construction jobs in our region are by non-union companies, many of whom are small family-owned. While the Governor’s message speaks to the budget in the short term, there is consistent reporting that a PLA limits local non-union construction companies from participating in public sector projects. The Chamber encourages local governments to review the past PLA only projects and determine if this is the right direction to help support local small businesses.