♪ VICKI: IN YUBA CITY, THOSE WHO BELIEVE GOVERNOR NEWSOM IS OVERSTEPPING HIS AUTHORITY MADE THEIR VOICES KNOWN. >> A GOVERNOR WHO IS WAY OUT OF BALANCE. HE HAS STARTED ACTING LIKE WHAT I CALL A DICTATOR. >> HE NEEDS TO HEAR HIS PEOPLE AND NOT BE A TYRANT AND NOT BE A KING. >> WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION TO ABIDE BY AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH HE IS JUST A ONE-MAN RUL VICKI: RALLYING OUTSIDE SUTTER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. >> TRUE PATRIOTS RIGHT HERE. VICKI: IN SUPPORT OF REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLYMEMBERS JAMES GALLAGHER FROM YUBA CITY AND KEVIN KILEY FROM ROCKLIN FOR TAKING THE GOVERNOR TO COURT. >> AND HE’S BEEN ISSUING ORDER AFTER ORDER AFTER ORDER. THAT AFFECT ALL FACETS OF ALL OF OUR LIVES WITHOUT ANY OF US, NOT ME AS A LEGISLATOR, NOT ANY OF US AS CITIZENS, HAVING ANY SAY IN THE MATTER. VICKI: WE COULD ONLY TAKE STILL PHOTOS DURING THE TRIAL. BUT GALLAGHER AND KILEY ARE ARGUING THE GOVERNOR MADE SWEEPING CHANGES TO ELECTION LAW IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, SIDESTEPPING LAWMAKERS AND ABUSING SEPARATION OF POWERS EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN AN EMERGENCY AND WE ALL RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO RESPOND TO THE EMERGENCY, WELL, OUR LEGISLATU CAN RESPOND, AND IN FACT, IT DID RESPOND. WE PASSED LEGISLATION. TO HELP ENSURE A FAIR AND SAFE ELECTION. WE DIDN’T NEED THE GOVERNOR TO TAKE OVER OUR JOB FOR US. VICKI: THE GOVERNOR’S ATTORNEY’S ARGUED THE LAWMAKER’S POINTS WORK WELL IN THEORY BUT NOT IN PRACTICE DURING AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE ELECTION NEEDED TO QUICKLY SAFEGUARDED DURING AN UNPRECEDENTED PANDEMIC NEWSOM’S ATTORNEYS AGREE THAT THE GOVERNOR CANNOT LEGISLATE. THAT’S JUST NOT HIS JOB. BUT THEY ARGUED THE PURPOSE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IS TO RESPOND QUICKLY TO AN EMERGENCY, AN EARTHQUAKE, WILDFIRE, AND IN THIS CASE, A PANDEMIC. AND THAT THEY ARE MEANT TO FIL THE GAP AS LAWMAKERS LEGISLATE ADDING, ONCE BILLS CONCERNING , THE ELECTION WERE SIGNED INTO LAW, THEY REPLACED HIS EXECUTIVE OR
Judge weighs lawsuit challenging Newsom’s emergency powers
Updated: 10:34 AM PDT Oct 22, 2020
A Sutter County Superior Court judge heard arguments Wednesday stemming from a lawsuit challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency powers.Two Republican lawmakers sued Newsom, a Democrat, over executive orders shaping election preparations during the pandemic. The executive action, in part, mandated all registered voters receive vote-by-mail ballots and allowed counties to reduce precincts on Election Day if they provide in-person voting centers for at least three days prior. Overall, Assembly members James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, and Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, argue the governor’s executive orders during the novel coronavirus pandemic are an overreach of authority because they change exiting state law, which is the responsibility of the legislature. “We see this as an opportunity to change the way we do business and the way we govern,” Kiley said. “I think that is a very dangerous thing. And he’s made good on his word and he’s been issuing order after order after order. That affects all facets of all of our lives without any of us—not me as a legislator, not any of us as citizens, having any say in the matter.”Wednesday was a continuation of the June decision. A judge initially issued a temporary restraining order against Newsom’s executive orders. But, an appellate judge overturned the lower court’s ruling. “It’s not disagreeing. In fact, Kevin Kiley and I both voted for doing an all-mail ballot election, right? It’s not the issue of, do we dislike the policy,” Gallagher said. “It’s 'Hey, we live in a democracy, where there are three branches of government,' right? And he’s not allowed to legislate. That’s our job at the state legislature, and he can’t basically take over our job. And, there are implications if we allow one man to do that.”Attorneys representing the governor argued the lawmakers' points work well in theory but not in practice during an emergency -- when the election needed to be quickly safeguarded during an unprecedented pandemic.The attorneys agreed Newsom can’t legislate but argued the purpose of an executive order is to respond quickly to an emergency -- an earthquake, wildfire, and, in this case, a pandemic -- and that these executive actions were meant to fill the gap as lawmakers deliberate. Adding, once bills concerning the upcoming election were signed into law, those laws superseded the governor’s executive orders. “Truly, I have not made a decision,” Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman said in court. Heckman is expected to make a tentative statement in the coming days, which both parties will be able to respond to, and then she will make a final ruling.
YUBA CITY, Calif. — A Sutter County Superior Court judge heard arguments Wednesday stemming from a lawsuit challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency powers.
Two Republican lawmakers sued Newsom, a Democrat, over executive orders shaping election preparations during the pandemic.
The executive action, in part, mandated all registered voters receive vote-by-mail ballots and allowed counties to reduce precincts on Election Day if they provide in-person voting centers for at least three days prior.
Overall, Assembly members James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, and Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, argue the governor’s executive orders during the novel coronavirus pandemic are an overreach of authority because they change exiting state law, which is the responsibility of the legislature.
“We see this as an opportunity to change the way we do business and the way we govern,” Kiley said. “I think that is a very dangerous thing. And he’s made good on his word and he’s been issuing order after order after order. That affects all facets of all of our lives without any of us—not me as a legislator, not any of us as citizens, having any say in the matter.”
Wednesday was a continuation of the June decision. A judge initially issued a temporary restraining order against Newsom’s executive orders. But, an appellate judge overturned the lower court’s ruling.
“It’s not disagreeing. In fact, Kevin Kiley and I both voted for doing an all-mail ballot election, right? It’s not the issue of, do we dislike the policy,” Gallagher said. “It’s 'Hey, we live in a democracy, where there are three branches of government,' right? And he’s not allowed to legislate. That’s our job at the state legislature, and he can’t basically take over our job. And, there are implications if we allow one man to do that.”
Attorneys representing the governor argued the lawmakers' points work well in theory but not in practice during an emergency -- when the election needed to be quickly safeguarded during an unprecedented pandemic.
The attorneys agreed Newsom can’t legislate but argued the purpose of an executive order is to respond quickly to an emergency -- an earthquake, wildfire, and, in this case, a pandemic -- and that these executive actions were meant to fill the gap as lawmakers deliberate. Adding, once bills concerning the upcoming election were signed into law, those laws superseded the governor’s executive orders.
“Truly, I have not made a decision,” Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman said in court.
Heckman is expected to make a tentative statement in the coming days, which both parties will be able to respond to, and then she will make a final ruling.