From the things you can’t make up file. I tried to "splain it in 140 characters on Twitter as follows…
Although Abel Maldonado Lt Gov bid fails in Assembly, 37-35, reports have Arnold claiming it takes 41 vote majority for a rejection.
Here’s the longer "official" version…
For Immediate Release:
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Contact: Aaron McLear
Rachel Arrezola
Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Legal Secretary Andrea Lynn Hoch Issues Statement on California Constitutional Requirements for Governor’s Lieutenant Governor
Governor Schwarzenegger’s Legal Secretary Andrea Lynn Hoch today issued the following statement on the Governor’s Lieutenant Governor nominee Senator Abel Maldonado and what the California Constitution requires for confirmation:
"The California Constitution is clear: if the legislature does not act to refuse to confirm the Governor’s nominee, his appointment moves forward. The Constitution only speaks to ‘refusal’ of confirmation. Furthermore, the Lungren decision does not apply to this situation. The Lungren case addresses an entirely different situation and is not instructive here. Based on the Assembly vote, Senator Maldonado will be sworn in as Lieutenant Governor."
Article V of the California Constitution states that the nominee takes office if he or she is "neither confirmed nor refused confirmation" by both chambers. Today’s Assembly vote is not a "refusal" to confirm, there is neither a confirmation nor a refusal to confirm by that chamber and, under the text of the Constitution, the nominee would take office.
The decision in the case of Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727 dealt with a situation in which the Assembly voted to confirm and the Senate voted to deny. The court held that in that scenario, the nominee would not take office. The Lungren decision has nothing to say about the question here – when a majority isn’t reached, does the vote count as a refusal. According to the California Constitution, today’s Assembly vote is not a "refusal" to confirm.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
###
February 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I don’t have immediate access to the Lungren v. Deukmejian case, but I think Arnie needs to take a closer look at Section 5(b) of Article V of the California Constitution. It reads in the pertinent part as follows:
“In the event the nominee is either confirmed nor refused confirmation by both the Senate and the Assembly within 90 days of the submission of the nomination, the nominee shall take office as if he or she had been confirmed by a majority of the Senate and Assembly; provided, that if such 90-day period ends during a recess of the Legislature, the period shall be extended until the sixth day following the day on which the Legislature reconvenes.”
I interpret this to mean that the Senate and Assembly have 90 days to act on the nomination. Interpreting the vote as neither a confirmation for refusal confirm is debatable, but swearing Maldo in before the end of the 90 day action period seems to be out of line.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
We need a legal opinion as to why Arnold can redefine the Constitution to mean a super majority. Don’t see it here. Hope some legal beagles can clarify things a little bit.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Carl: It doesn’t sound like the swearing-in would take place prior to February 22, which is the end of the 90 day period.
Gary: Who is suggesting that he needs a super majority?
February 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Did any Republicans vote for Maldonado? If so who? I need to know who to never support in the GOP. If Maldonado is anything other than a RINO, then I will be the next President of the USA