A Republican lawmaker is seeking to rein in the governor\u2019s emergency powers in California, arguing the authority exercised during the COVID-19 pandemic went too far and lasted too long.<\/p>\n
Assemblymember James Gallagher, a Republican from East Nicolaus, introduced a bill this week that would limit any state of emergency declared by the governor to 90 days. Any extension beyond that would require a vote of the Legislature.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn emergencies, it\u2019s certainly important that we have an executive that has the power to do things quickly, but there needs to be a balance,\u201d Gallagher said.<\/p>\n
Under his proposal, lawmakers would be required to weigh in if a governor seeks to continue emergency powers past three months \u2014 a change Gallagher said would provide oversight he believes was lacking during the pandemic.<\/p>\n
\u201cHey, are things being done properly? Is there some oversight? Is there a need for further emergency powers or not? And I think that was a problem during COVID-19 is that this just extended for a very long time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The proposal would amend the California Emergency Services Act, established in 1970 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan. The law allows the governor to proclaim a state of emergency in areas affected or likely to be affected by an emergency, giving the executive authority over the Legislature to dedicate state and federal resources.<\/p>\n
Chris Micheli, a legislative analyst, said the intent of the law is \u201cto cut through the proverbial red tape and expedite procedures and funding.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office, governors in these situations have extensive authority, often exercised through executive orders.<\/p>\n
During the pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued 58 COVID-related executive orders, according to his website. He declared a state of emergency in March 2020 and issued stay-at-home orders two weeks later. The state did not fully reopen until June 2021.<\/p>\n
\u201cA lot of people \u2013 Democrats and Republicans \u2013 last time this felt like there needed to be more of a role for the Legislature,\u201d Gallagher said.<\/p>\n
Newsom faced legal challenges over some of his orders, including mask mandates and the forced closure of businesses. Courts largely sided with the governor, citing unprecedented times.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe question really was how far does the Governor\u2019s power or how broad is the Governor\u2019s power?\u201d Micheli said.<\/p>\n
He added that concerns over legislative oversight can only be addressed by narrowing the scope of the Emergency Services Act.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe only ability to change that or to narrow the scope of the governor\u2019s power is to narrow the Emergency Services Act,\u201d Micheli said.<\/p>\n
Changing state law would require approval from both the Legislature and the governor \u2014 the process Gallagher is now initiating.<\/p>\n
Newsom\u2019s office declined to comment, noting it does not typically comment on pending legislation. The Democratic caucus also declined to comment.<\/p>\n
Representatives of local restaurants, businesses and jurisdictions were contacted about potential local impacts of state mandates but declined to comment, saying the bill is in its early stages.<\/p>\n
The bill is set to be heard in its first committee hearing in the coming weeks. We’ll likely see more legislators weigh in should the bill advance.<\/p>\n