Steinberg to Sue Governor Over Line-Item Vetoes

So reports the Sacramento Bee in this article. He'll be represented by the Remcho, Johansen firm. The Los Angeles Times covers the story here.

A Skeptical Look at the Constitutional Convention

From the Orange County Register (here).

Supreme Court Slightly Narrows Workplace Privacy Protection

In Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (here), the Supreme Court has held that an employer did not violates its employees' constitutional rights to privacy by surreptitiously monitoring their office for pornographic computer use during non-work hours. While the Court held that the employees had privacy interests in their workplaces (which may be the most important part of the holding), it also held that the intrusion was not highly offensive and significantly serious so as to violate those interests. The court placed particular emphasis on the fact that the employees were not monitored during work hours (indeed, no one was actually videotaped) and the employer's interest as a residential facility for neglected and abused children to prevent such computer use.

Water Charges Are Fees Not Assessments

In Paland v. Brooktrails Township (here), the Court of Appeal has clarified the scope of Proposition 218 as applied to water charges. The plaintiff claimed that a minimum monthly base rate imposed by a special district for water service that was available but not used constituted a "fee" that is required to comply with the requirements of Article XIII D. Section 6, rather than an "assessment" required to comply with Article XIII D, Section 4. The difference is important because, among other things, an assessment requires a vote of the assessees, while a fee (for water service) does not. Here's the holding: "[W]e conclude the water and sewer base rates imposed on parcels with water or sewer connections regardless of whether they are active or inactive, and whether or not the property owner uses the services, is a fee subject to the provisions of article XIII D, section 6, not an assessment subject to the requirements of article XIII D, section 4." Ungrammatical, but correct, in light of prior Supreme Court authority holding that water charges are fees.

Are The Line Item Vetoes Legal?

Here is an interesting post that discusses the issue, with links to conflicting opinions from the Legislative Counsel and the Department of Finance.
ps. Here is an editorial from the Los Angeles Times on the same subject; here is an article from the same paper; here is an article from the San Francisco Chronicle and here is an article from the Sacramento Bee. None of the articles really add much, although one indicates that legislators may file briefs if someone else initiates litigation.

Is Bigger Better?

Ryan Connerty suggests that a bigger Legislature means more democracy in this op-ed piece from the Los Angeles Times. Would it cost too much? Cut the legislators' pay, he says. (Coonerty teaches constitutional law at UC Santa Cruz.)

The Two Different Two-Thirds Requirements

In this column, Dan Walters distinguishes between the two-thirds requirements for passing a budget and increasing taxes (for purposes of increasing revenue). He says the former stands a reasonable chance of being repealed, while the latter is politically untouchable.