Senator’s proposal to end Governor’s emergency powers set for hearing

An Inland Empire lawmaker's proposal to bring an end to the coronavirus-based state of emergency declared by Gov. Gavin Newsom nearly two years ago will be the subject of a hearing in the state Senate next month.  

Sen. Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, has made several attempts to secure hearings regarding the governor's ongoing use of emergency powers, and she said Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, finally agreed to calendar her latest measure, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5. 

I am pleased to report that my SCR 5 to end the state of emergency has been given a hearing date of March 15th.

— Senator Melissa Melendez (@senatormelendez) February 17, 2022

The proposal is set for a hearing on March 15 in the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization.

"I appreciate the majority party agreeing to hear SCR 5, even though it's taken almost two years to get a hearing," Melendez said.  "I'm encouraged the majority party has finally agreed to join my effort to at least debate the merits of ending the state of emergency and again making the Legislature an equal branch of government."

The governor's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, the state's Health and Human Services secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, told reporters Thursday that directives issued by the governor under the emergency declaration "have allowed us to protect Californians in quite an incredible way -- the tools that we're all using today."  

With the state on Thursday announcing an "endemic'' plan preparing for longer-term co-existence with COVID-19, Ghaly said the state needs to ensure it maintains tools needed to respond to evolving virus conditions.

"As we move out of the mindset of an emergency, we've got to make sure the tools that have helped us manage the emergency well are available," he said. "So I know that my colleagues in the administration, the Legislature, are thinking through this (emergency declaration) ... and I'm sure are preparing something down the road."   

Melendez's SCR 5 states that the governor has issued almost 50 executive orders under the state of emergency that have "unilaterally (changed) 200 laws spanning most divisions of the California codes."

Newsom proclaimed the emergency on March 4, 2020, using the California Emergency Services Act -- Chapter 7 of the state Government Code -- to justify the declaration in response to the spread of COVID-19.

States of emergency were declared in all 50 states at the beginning of the virus outbreak. However, since that time, half the states have formally ended their emergencies, according to published reports.

Melendez previously authored SCR 93 in the summer of 2020, seeking legislative scrutiny of the governor's emergency powers, but the measure was tabled without debate. In February 2021, she also submitted SB 448, which seeks to narrowly define when and how future emergency declarations can be made, as well as apply specific limits to their duration.   

That bill remains active and has received bipartisan support. It is awaiting additional hearings.

Assemblymen James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, and Kevin Kiley, R-El Dorado, filed suit against the governor in 2020 to prohibit his use of executive orders to create or change legislation, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The civil action resulted in a Sutter County judge granting a temporary restraining order.

However, a state appellate court overruled the trial court judge, invalidating the TRO. The matter was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which declined to hear it last August.

In his appellate brief, the governor wrote that his orders were in response to "the most serious crisis in modern California history" and that he had exercised his authority to prevent "uncoordinated (and) haphazard action" that could make matters worse in containing the virus.   

SCR 5 cites Gallagher's and Kiley's case in arguing for the Legislature to end the state of emergency.

"An open-ended state of emergency, with boundless powers vested in a chief executive, is incompatible with democratic government," according to the resolution.

It recognizes that counties and cities may continue, at their own discretion, to declare local emergencies to "mitigate the spread of COVID- 19," with state support.