A California judge was on the side of Republican lawmakers on Friday, saying that Governor Gavin Newsom exceeded his powers during the coronavirus crisis with dozens of emergency orders that changed everything from holding public meetings to vacating tenants.
Sutter County Supreme Court judge Perry Parker stopped only one of the November electoral orders, but ordered Newsom to refrain from new orders that could be interpreted as usurping the legislator's responsibilities.
The judge appeared to continue to adopt a proposal for a resolution put forward by GOP MPs James Gallagher and Kevin Kiley that had challenged the election decision.
Parker prohibited Newsom "from continuing to exercise legislative powers that violate California’s constitution and applicable law, particularly unilaterally changing, amending, or amending existing laws or creating new ones." He was planning a hearing on June 26 to consider an injunction.
"This is a victory for the separation of powers," the legislator said in a joint statement. "The governor continued to impudently impose laws through Fiat without public contribution and without the legislative advisory process. Today, the judiciary has finally given him the check that was necessary and that the constitution requires."
The Attorney General referred questions to the Attorney General, since in this case he is the client.
Newsom spokesman Jesse Melgar said in a statement: "We are disappointed with this initial decision and look forward to the opportunity to inform the Court of Justice about the issues."
In the early weeks of the pandemic, Newsom used its executive and emergency services extensively and repeatedly to virtually bring the state and its economy to a standstill. He has received support from federal and state courts that have blocked previous challenges in his efforts to slow the spread of the corona virus.
Richard Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California at Irvine, said Parker's order appeared to block executive orders "that would suspend or change legal law or continue to exercise" legislative powers. "
"There can of course be disagreements about what this means in relation to certain executive orders," he said.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, said the judge's order "just says that the governor cannot issue orders that violate the law."
"The paragraph in the regulation is vague, but I think it clearly doesn't prohibit all implementing regulations, only those that are unconstitutional or against the law," he said.
The legislature of both political parties has criticized Newsom for not having included them sufficiently in its comprehensive statements and budget decisions since the pandemic began. The governor has issued more than 40 orders following a Gallagher court motion.
These include clearing vacancies, delaying late fees for paying taxes or renewing driving licenses, giving grocery stores free one-way bags – and even marrying couples by video or conference call with digitally signed marriage certificates and certificates via email -Mail sent.
They are on a 28-page list submitted by Kiley of Newsom's orders and amending existing state laws.
This also means that local and state governments can hold public telephone meetings instead of meeting in person. Extend deadlines for different companies to pay fees, submit reports, or renew licenses; Suspension of rules to protect medical privacy of patients; Suspension of deadlines and teaching requirements for local school districts; and suspension of election periods and procedures.
Parker's broad language, which bans future orders, was the end of a five-paragraph decision that halted an executive order on June 3, requiring county election officials to set up hundreds of locations across the state where voters could vote Elections in November can submit ballot papers personally.
Parker temporarily blocked the order, calling it "improper use of legislative powers in violation of the California Constitution and California Laws."
Newsom had previously ordered officials to send each registered voter a postal vote as one of many responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Republicans starting with President Donald Trump criticized this move as a possible electoral fraud, but Parker's decision did not respond to this earlier order.
Regardless, however, the conservative Judicial Watch group stated that it had filed for an injunction against Newom's order in its own federal lawsuit to send ballot papers to each voter.
In the meantime, state lawmakers are presenting their own bills that would instruct the counties to send postal ballot papers to every registered voter. The MPs' lawsuit states that they have been back in session since May 4, even when Newsom issued the election command, even though they had suspended the legislative period at the start of the pandemic.