The Recorder, By Cheryl Miller

September 3, 2008

SACRAMENTO - Judiciary leaders this weekend finally won the legislative battle to secure $5 billion in bond funding for 40 courthouse construction projects around the state.

But after a week of harried negotiations and, finally, a controversial last-minute amendment to Senate Bill 1407, the question now is: How long will they be paying for their success?

To get SB 1407 moving to the governor's desk, court executives agreed to changes late Friday that eliminated the need for Republican votes - the same votes they'll need next year if they actually want to spend any of that bond money, or improve judges' pension system or fund a host of other items on the judicial wish list.

Whether the move turns out to be a prudent, calculated risk or a Pyrrhic victory won't be known until a new Legislature gavels in next year.

To recap: After passing out of the state Senate in May, SB 1407 became stuck in the state Assembly, the victim of a budget stalemate and conservatives' anger over recent court decisions. Normally, Democrats, with their 48-vote majority in an 80-member Assembly, can and do move bills without Republican help. But SB 1407 required a two-thirds vote, giving GOP lawmakers a rare source of leverage in the lower house.

Republican leaders soon made it clear that they wouldn't put up the needed votes on SB 1407 until Democrats made concessions on the months-overdue state budget, according to numerous legislative sources. What's more, conservative GOP members were suggesting that the caucus could express its displeasure with recent court decisions on gay marriage and parole releases by voting against the bill.

"I think those two opinions written by [Chief] Justice Ronald George really soured people on the court issue," Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, told the Los Angeles Times.

Other Assembly Republicans said openly that the proposed increases in traffic fines and criminal penalties, expected to generate millions of dollars annually in debt service, would most hurt people who couldn't afford the hit.

"All this bill effectively does is punish poor people," Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Claremont, said Friday.

Still, as of early last week, judicial lobbyists thought they could pry enough votes from Assembly Republicans to move the bill by Sunday's legislative deadline. But by Thursday night, those hopes dwindled. Late Friday afternoon, Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, brought SB 1407 to the floor for a vote. It failed, with every Republican voting no or abstaining.

Jones then quickly announced that he wanted to amend the bill to strip the Judicial Council's authority to spend the first $61.5 million in bond funding on courthouse projects in Butte, Tehama, Los Angeles and Yolo counties. That simple change, according to legislative counsel, replaced the need for a two-thirds vote with a simple majority requirement. Republicans howled.

"All this accomplishes is creating confusion about whether or not this body is going to build court facilities," Spitzer said. He then watched as Democrats provided the simple majority SB 1407 needed. The state Senate approved the Assembly's amendments Sunday, sending the bill to the governor just hours before the legislative session ended. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated he will sign SB 1407.

William Vickrey, the Administrative Office of the Courts' director, said he hasn't heard any complaints from Republicans in the wake of Friday's vote.

"It certainly would have been preferable to have [the Republicans] provide the two-thirds vote, but we understand [they] had other policy issues they wanted addressed," Vickrey said Tuesday.

Ultimately, Vickrey said, judicial officials, fearing SB 1407 would remain stuck in the Assembly until Sunday's deadline, decided to act.

Otherwise, "It might have been impossible to get this bill passed this year," he said.

Republican lawmakers may not be the judiciary's only problem. Leaders of the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association say they're considering a possible lawsuit challenging the vote on SB 1407.

"We think it should have gotten a two-thirds vote," said association President Jon Coupal. "These revenue streams do look a lot like a tax increase," which would require a supermajority approval.

Republicans, who railed on the Assembly floor about the bill's shortcomings, apparently don't want to talk about the long-term effects of last week's end-of-session maneuvering. Calls to a half-dozen GOP legislators were not returned Tuesday.

Jennifer Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, R-Clovis, would say only that "Assembly Republicans' decision to oppose the bill was based on fiscal concerns and an undue burden on hardworking people. Any future requests would be analyzed and weighed using the same criteria."

If the governor signs the bill as expected, the higher court filing fees and criminal penalties will take effect in January. Judicial officials don't plan to float the $5 billion in bonds for at least a couple years, choosing to use a pay-as-you-go policy to gauge the revenue stream before they spend it - if legislators grant them that spending authority. Vickrey said that, hopefully, soon after the start of the new year, Republicans will join Democrats in supporting a bill that authorizes that very thing.

"That," he said, "would be nice."