Appeals Court Finds Wilson’s Welfare Ballot Initiative Valid

A three-justice appellate court panel Friday unanimously upheld the validity of Gov. Pete Wilson’s ballot initiative that seeks to cut welfare checks and give the state’s chief executive broad new powers to deal with budget emergencies.

The League of Women Voters and other groups had asked the 3rd District Court of Appeal to keep the measure off the November ballot, arguing that it violated the state Constitution’s rule limiting an initiative to a single subject.

But Presiding Justice Robert K. Puglia wrote that the two parts of the initiative were “reasonably germane” and had a single, unifying objective.

“Attaining a balanced budget is the overall theme and driving purpose of the measure.” Puglia concluded. Justices Keith F. Sparks and George Nicholson agreed.

Wilson said the court “recognized what we have been saying all along--that welfare reform is a critical component of the budget reforms needed to bring runaway government spending under control.”

Opponents of the initiative said they would probably appeal Friday’s ruling to the California Supreme Court, although no final decision had been made, said Robert Newman, staff attorney for the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The center represented welfare recipient Coleen M. Jarvis in the lawsuit.

Wilson’s initiative is a complicated measure, combining amendments to California’s Constitution with a rewrite of the state welfare statutes. The full text runs 37 pages.

The proposal would shorten the time that the Legislature has to consider the budget and put some bite into a toothless constitutional requirement that work be completed by June 15--cutting off the salaries of the governor and legislators after that date until they reached an agreement.

The measure automatically extends the previous year’s budget if no agreement is reached by July 1--the start of a new fiscal year.

And it gives the governor the power to make unilateral cuts in spending and in state salaries during fiscal emergencies, unless the Legislature passes an alternate plan on a two-thirds vote.

The welfare changes would reduce payments under Aid to Families With Dependent Children by as much as 25%--even more for families moving to California from states with lower benefits.

Opponents of the initiative argued that combining the welfare cuts with the budgetary changes was an attempt to confuse voters and win popular support for a major shift in power from the Legislature to the governor.

But the court did not agree.

The justices ruled that the welfare cuts were permissible because they attack what backers call “one of the most egregious ‘budget busters,’ the state welfare system.”

State courts have struck down initiatives and statutes for violating the single-subject rule--but they have also upheld complicated measures that have a well-defined purpose.

Meanwhile in Los Angeles, three state employee professional organizations filed a lawsuit with the 2nd District Court of Appeal, contending that the measure violates the single-subject rule because of the provision allowing the governor to cut employee salaries by 5%.