One thing I’ll say for California Gov. Schwarzenegger’s “post-partisanship”: he manages to infuriate almost everybody at least some of the time, and give almost every side at least one or two reasons to rejoice. There’s been a lot of bill-signing lately, with last night marking the deadline by which nearly 1000 bills passed by the legislature had to be signed or vetoed. There’s a good summary here.
On the issue I care most about, the environment, this past weekend offered good and bad news.
Good: The governor signed bills to ban lead bullets (a major factor in the poisoning of wild condors) and to ban plastic softeners, known as phthalates, from use in toys. The former could be big news:
A letter to Schwarzenegger, signed by Fish and Game Commission executive director John Carlson Jr. and commission president Richard Rogers, urging the governor’s veto noted that recent testimony before the commission from gun and cartridge makers was that the technology does not exist to manufacture bullets that are 100 percent free of any trace of lead.
“The requirement for ammunition to have no lead content,” the letter said, “would essentially completely ban hunting of big game and coyotes throughout the condor range.”
May it be so.
Schwarzenegger also signed a bill giving rebates for those who use solar water heaters; the money will come from a new utility tax. Given how much energy is used to heat water, switching to solar is a major way to “green” one’s home. Given that the governor is normally very tax-averse, this was excellent news.
And he signed a bill that will increase vehicle fees in order to pay for smog abatement efforts, and a bill that will allow restraining orders in domestic violence cases for the express purpose of protecting pets. No more abusing Spot as a tactic to hurt your ex.
Bad: The governor nixed a bill that would have required “environmentally responsible” practices in design and construction of all state-owned buildings. He also vetoed a bill that would have forced chain restaurants to post nutrition information about all of their offerings. He also signed a bill permitting the importing of kangaroo hide. Ouch.
Overall, on the environmental issues, Schwarzenegger gets a B-. I’m in a generous mood.
On the social issues, the governor again proved Solomonic, giving both left and right reason for cheer and disappointment.
Good and Bad: The legislature sent eight bills to the governor’s desk addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered rights. The governor signed six and vetoed two. The governor, for the second consecutive year, vetoed a bill that would have permitted same-sex marriage. But the six bills that he did sign are not insignificant measures of progress for the LGBT community. The measures (see the link immediately above) protect LGBT youth in schools from discrimination, and they make it easier for same-sex domestic partners to take a common name upon registering with the state. (The same bill now, at last, makes it as easy for a husband to take his wife’s name as vice-versa, something that had not previously been the case.)
The extreme right is howling mad (Arnold Schwarzenegger Signs Bills Forcing Schools to Promote Transsexuality, Bisexuality, and Homosexuality to Five Year Olds!!!) while advocates for marriage equality are both disappointed and pleased.
Also good news: The governor signed SB 94, which raises the reimbursement amount for family planning services. Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide a wide range of reproductive health services will receive enhanced compensation as a result. The Right is anguished. Given that most other services covered by Medi-Cal did not see any increase at all, this is especially noteworthy. (And I’m still waiting for a Catholic bishop to be as hard on the Republican Catholic Schwarzenegger for his pro-choice views as the church has been on pro-choice Catholic Democrats.)
Overall on social issues: Schwarzenegger earns a B+.
And on immigration, Schwarzenegger split the difference again. He vetoed a bill that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, and he vetoed a bill very important to many of my students — one that would have permitted undocumented young people to become eligible for college aid. On the other hand, he signed a bill that made California the first state in the nation to prohibit municipalities from requiring landlords to verify the immigration status of renters.
The governor’s grade on immigrant’s rights: C.
Still, on balance, the governor has been much better than I dared hope. I remember dreading the California recall in 2003, worried that Schwarzenegger would move the state dramatically right. I was no fan of Gray Davis, the governor he replaced: Davis was calculating and timid, but I preferred the devil I knew to the one I didn’t. On social and environmental issues, however, Schwarzenegger has largely been a centrist, at times showing flashes of genuine progressivism. He signed an anti-global warming bill that Davis would surely have vetoed, and his record on gay rights is probably better than his predecessor’s would have been had the recall failed.
Had I known then what I know now, I would have been much less upset by the recall. California is, on balance, slightly farther to the left as a result of that political upheaval four years ago. Who woulda thunk it?
Lifting the kangaroo-leather ban had to be expected. It would be kind of like banning the killing of wild rabbits or squirrels here — they’re so prolific (at least the species of kangaroo not protected) that they’re regarded as minor pests. I don’t think that’s a good argument, mind you, just one that, unfortunately, many people find rather persuasive.
Likewise with the completely irrational veto of marriage equality. IIRC, Schwarzenegger decried the judicial ruling in MA that brought in marriage equality there, arguing that the legislature was the appropriate body to make those kinds of decisions.
I was going to write something about Peter Camejo here, but I suddenly understand why you believe a moderate and thoughtful Republican party is possible. You have a very good example of a thoughtful, moderate Republican in Schwarzenegger — indeed, a Republican who’s in many respects more thoughtful and moderate than the establishment Democrats.
I like Schwarzenegger, and not merely because we share a common ethnic heritage and the same four consonants with which to begin a surname.
Schwarzenegger represents a kind of Western progressive Republicanism which I had once feared was dead– and he’s made it work very well. I voted for Camejo in 2006, and I think the governor could be more Green than he is (and I would have signed the marriage bill). But he has been able to triangulate fairly effectively, and has marginalized the far right that has a strangehold on most elected GOP officials in the state. California, once the home of moderate Republicanism (at least outside of New England) now has few authentic centrists left.
On the signature issues, with the exception of gay marriage, there’s an argument that Schwarzenegger is at a minimum no worse than your average corrupt Democrat (cf Grey Davis).
But in terms of long-term leadership, Schwarzenegger is a miserable failure. Higher-education is being rapidly priced out of the reach of the lower middle class. Secondary education is still reeling from the effects of the first dot-com bust. Schwarzenegger’s love affair with bonds are a disaster for California’s future. Responsible government used to be a hallmark of centrist Republicans. No more.
The gay marriage bill is really a “shall we respect the plain language of the Constitution or wipe our collective butts with it” bill. The language of Prop 22 is clear, as is the constitutional ban on legislation that violates voter initiatives. If Schwarzenegger hadn’t vetoed that bill, the courts would have rightly “vetoed” it for him.
He’s not going to do a thing with same-sex marriage; the issue is coming up in the California Supreme Court.
When I finally collect on that two year old bet, I know. My point was that Schwarzenegger’s stated reason for vetoing the previous bill remains unchanged. If Prop 22 is unconstitutional, this bill isn’t necessary. If it’s constitutional, the bill is unconstitutional. Either way, it seems pretty pointless to sign it.