Gavin Newsom has 1,500 lawyers at his disposal at the Attorney General’s Office. Yet he still claimed to need a 15-day “extension” to file his 1-page Answer in our lawsuit.
We told the Governor we’d give him the extra time on one condition. He had to agree to an expedited trial on the merits:
“We would be open to granting an extension if you will agree to stipulate to putting an agreed case before the court to be tried on an expedited basis. This case is straightforward: the Governor’s order is either authorized by the California Constitution or it is not. It would be in all parties (and the public’s) interest to have the merits of this case decided sooner rather than later. So that would be our counter-proposal: an extension in return for the stipulation.”
A few days later the Attorney General responded: “The Governor was not interested in such a stipulation.”
Of course he wasn’t. He’s not willing to relinquish his best hope for dodging another ruling against his unconstitutional actions: delay.
Gov. Newsom knows he’s been caught red-handed. While he’s been abusing his powers left and right, with Executive Order N-67-20 that is easily proven. His action to overhaul an entire election months in advance was clearly an unconstitutional assumption of legislative powers outside the scope of any “emergency.”
This is the reason we’re challenging that particular order: It will create the legal precedent for ending Newsom’s one-man rule. Courts are generally reluctant to rein Governors in, but with this order the case is clear-cut.
That’s why ours is the one case in California where a court has ruled against the Governor, granting our request for a Temporary Restraining Order on June 12.
Gov. Newsom knows our victory at trial will restore constitutional government in California. That’s why he is using every trick in the book, including ousting the judge and now further delay, to avoid an unfavorable outcome.
After he turned down our offer, we denied the Governor’s extension request. So he filed his Answer, which lists five “affirmative defenses.”
The first four are boilerplate, listed without explanation. But Defense #5 is eyebrow-raising: “The complaint is or will become moot.”
What the Governor means is that a bill currently in the Legislature, SB 423, deals with the same issues as his Executive Order. After that bill passes, he argues, there will be no issue left for the court to resolve.
Incredibly, Gov. Newsom is saying the legislative process is pre-ordained, and that his predicted outcome is a legal defense.
That is a jarring claim: it empowers him to take any action unilaterally if the Legislature could in theory later pass legislation on the same topic. The Governor is literally claiming all powers of the Legislature for himself.
This follows the Governor’s recent argument in a brief that courts should simply assume any and all actions he undertakes are justified by the “readily apparent” threat of the pandemic, with “no evidence at all” from him needed.
Usually, when a Governor gets challenged in court, he tries to play down the scope of his actions so as to make the most modest claims possible to defend himself.
Gov. Newsom has done the opposite: with each legal argument, he presents a theory of unilateral power even more expansive than what his abusive actions suggest.
That’s why the stakes are so high. This is our best chance to check Gavin Newsom’s executive overreach and see that our republican form of government is never again brought to the point of collapse by a runaway Governor.
