The California Constitution authorizes the governor to call a special session of the Legislature “[o]n extraordinary occasions.” Ordinarily, the election of a president every four years would not qualify as an “extraordinary occasion.”
Nonetheless, on November 7, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a proclamation, calling for a special legislative session to commence on December 2 because “on November 6, 2024, it became clear that Donald J. Trump has won election as President.”
Ironically, that very proclamation also contradicts the need for a special session. The call for such a special session is also counterproductive: It will adversely impact the Legislature’s future budget deliberations and distract it from tackling the current problems facing Californians.
First, let’s examine the need for the special session. Gov. Newsom’s proclamation argues that a special session on December 2 is necessary to “provide additional funding to the California Department of Justice” and executive branch agencies to “immediately file affirmative litigation” against the anticipated actions of the Trump administration when it takes office on January 20.
But the governor’s proclamation acknowledges that his office and the attorney general’s office “have been preparing for a potential second Trump term for more than a year” in order “to be ready to challenge in court unconstitutional and unlawful federal policies.” (Italics added). So why call a special session to do what is already being done?
Nor is any additional funding necessary for the attorney general’s office at this juncture – the special session’s purported purpose. The California Department of Justice has already been funded in the amount of approximately $1.3 billion for the current fiscal year through June 2025. Surely, the attorney general’s office is not short of money when we are not even half-way through the current fiscal year.
Gov. Newsom’s call on December 2 for a mere $25 million fund for the Department of Justice and other agencies to prepare for potential litigation against the Trump administration underscores that the special session is for show, not substance.
In any event, there was no need to call a special session commencing December 2 when the California Constitution provides for the Legislature to convene its regular session on that same day. The only benefit of a special session is that it allows statutes enacted during the session to take effect 91 days after adjournment. But various options are available during a regular session, like urgency statutes, to provide for the prompt implementation of legislation.
Furthermore, calling a special session for December 2 to fund what was already funded is not simply unnecessary. It is also irresponsible: California faces significant budget constraints for the upcoming fiscal year, making it premature to allocate more funding to the attorney general’s office in December to the detriment of funding greater (and unknown) needs in 2025.
Specifically, as of last month, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “the state faces double-digit operating deficits for years to come.” It also estimates that the state’s present budget already suffers from a deficit of $2 billion. In short, the state is spending too much as it is. The Legislative Analyst observes that the state’s spending growth from 2025 to 2029 is 5.8% compared to the 3.5% average in the recent past, demonstrating a need to cut expenditures, not add to them as proposed in a prematurely called special session.
Moreover, holding an unnecessary special session in December distracts the Legislature from dealing with California’s very real problems. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of October, the state’s unemployment rate rose to 5.4% from 5.1% a year earlier, giving California the distinction of having the second highest unemployment rate in the United States.
Related Articles
Scott Horton: Can Trump actually fend off the war hawks and bring peace?
Africa’s future depends on principled classical liberalism—nothing less
Bob Rawitch: With the election over, what should ordinary citizens do?
LA County’s homelessness spending policies expect success while subsidizing failure
Can Trump actually confirm Cabinet picks via recess appointments?
Other problems that warrant the Legislature’s attention include that customer electricity rates are twice the nation’s average; that the California Air Resources Board recently adopted changes to California’s low carbon fuel standard that is estimated to increase the cost of a gallon of gas by 47 cents; that California’s costly standard of living and excessive regulation are encouraging taxpayers, including businesses, to flee the state, thereby reducing funding for the state budget; and the failure to construct sufficient water storage projects in the face of climate change has allowed the recent atmospheric storm experienced by the state to largely flow into the Pacific Ocean.
In sum, Gov. Newsom’s call for a special session during the Legislature’s regular session to fund an attorney general’s office that currently has sufficient funding is not merely a misuse of gubernatorial power. It will distract and constrain the Legislature from addressing California’s real problems. Mr. Newsom, tear down this proclamation!
Daniel M. Kolkey, an attorney and former California associate justice, was counsel to Gov. Pete Wilson from 1995-1998, and presently chairs the California Reform Committee of Pacific Research Institute, a think tank.