RivCo Lawmaker Fails To End COVID State Of Emergency

LAKE ELSINORE, CA —A Riverside County lawmaker's attempt to end the COVID-based state of emergency declared by Gov. Gavin Newsom two years ago was defeated Tuesday in a party-line state Senate committee vote.

Sen. Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, endeavored on previous occasions to secure hearings regarding the governor's ongoing use of emergency powers. She said Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, last month finally agreed to calendar her latest measure, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5.

It was heard by the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization, whose four Republican members voted in favor of the proposal, and whose eight Democrat members voted against it, killing the resolution.

"I'm extremely disappointed my colleagues in the majority party lacked the courage to stand up to their governor and bring this state of emergency to an end," Melendez said. "California has been under a state of emergency for more than 700 days. During that time, local governments have been responding and mitigating the spread of COVID based upon their local knowledge and infection rates.

"It's time for the state to allow local governments to take the lead and address emergencies locally without the shotgun approach of a statewide emergency," she continued. "Twenty-nine other states have ended their states of emergency. Once again, California is leading from behind."

On the advice of state Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly, Gov. Gavin Newsom switched gears last month and adopted an "endemic" plan, under which he has rolled back some of the 70 executive orders issued since he declared the statewide emergency on March 4, 2020.

According to a Senate analysis of SCR-5, most of the emergency provisions will be terminated by March 31. However, some will not sunset until June 30, while 30 acts are slated to remain in place without a future cutoff date, meaning the emergency declaration does not have a set timetable.

According to the California Emergency Services Act -- Chapter 7 of the Government Code -- a governor is required to proclaim that a state of emergency is over "at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant."

If the governor does not make a proclamation, and the Legislature concludes that conditions no longer justify granting the chief executive broad authority to act unilaterally, lawmakers can vote to end the emergency.

"California continues to adjust our policies based on the latest data and science, applying what we've learned over the past two years to guide our response to the pandemic," Newsom said last month. "We cannot predict the future of the virus, but we are better prepared for it and will continue to take measures rooted in science to keep California moving forward."

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 cited 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.