Lawmakers could override almost any of Newsom’s vetoes. Why don’t they do it?

Stay informed with free briefings on topics important to all Californians. Sign up for CalMatters today to get nonprofit news in your inbox.

Nearly all of the 189 bills vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom this year passed the Legislature with the support of more than two-thirds of lawmakers, meaning those lawmakers’ votes alone would be enough to override the governor’s veto.

But this almost never happens. In fact, the last time the Legislature overrode a governor’s veto was in 1979.

So why don’t legislators fight for bills that enjoy such wide support?

Party loyalty and self-defense, says Dan Schnur, a professor of politics at the University of California, Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine University.

“A governor who has been rejected is generally not a happy governor, and unhappy governors tend to issue more vetoes, especially to members who voted to reject,” he said.

The Democrats’ current majority – 93 of 120 seats – also means that a legislator who opposes the governor can easily be replaced among the politically favored.

In other words, Schnur said, it’s a modern version of the saying, “if you’re coming for the king, you better not miss out.”

On Monday, the governor was scheduled to take up 1,206 bills the Legislature sent to his desk, out of 2,159 bills introduced during the regular session this year. Newsom has vetoed about 15.7% of all bills passed — slightly higher than the state average of 15% in recent years.

Of the 189 vetoes, 170 bills – about 90% – were passed by more than two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and the Senate, according to Digital Democracy’s analysis. About 96% of vetoed bills were passed by a two-thirds majority in at least one house.

Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber, which would mean at least 54 members of the Assembly and 27 members of the Senate. (Democrats currently make up 62 of 79 Assembly members and 31 of 40 state senators.)

The Governor vetoed bills for a variety of reasons, as expressed in his veto messages. According to an analysis by lobbyist and Capitol Hill watcher Chris Micheli, Newsom rejected 30% of the bills due to budget concerns and 27% due to policy disagreements. He vetoed another 22% as unnecessary or stepped on the toes of other state agencies or local governments.

Asked whether the number of vetoed bills that passed with broad legislative support indicated a lack of connection to the executive branch, Izzy Gardon, a spokesman for the governor, said: “The executive branch and the legislative branch are independent branches of government. The Governor’s decisions regarding legislation are made solely on the merits of each bill.”

The last veto override in 1979 concerned a bill by then-Assemblyman Lou Papan that would have banned banks from selling insurance. This was vetoed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. It was Brown’s second veto override in 11 days.

If this resolution were to be rejected, the legislative leadership would have to be involved in a political revolt.

Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Santa Rosa, has recently shown some willingness to stand up to Newsom, initially refusing to convene the Senate for the governor’s desired special session on gas prices. But he declined to comment on when he would consider overriding the governor’s veto.

State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas also declined to comment.

Thad Kousser, a politics professor at the University of California, San Diego, said one reason the Legislature might leave the governor’s veto unchallenged is to allow the governor to do the dirty work.

“They are happy to allow the governor to be an opponent and kill the bill without having to vote against it,” he said.

Sen. Scott Wiener, whose drug cost-cutting bill was vetoed last month despite widespread support, called the governor’s action a “really, really bad veto” but stopped short of calling for it to be rejected.

The bill, co-authored by both Democrats and Republicans, passed in both chambers with a vote of 70-0 in the Assembly and 38-2 in the Senate. If signed into law, it would require licensing for pharmacy benefit managers – companies that act as intermediaries between insurance companies and drug manufacturers to process claims and negotiate drug prices.

In his Sept. 28 veto, the governor said he didn’t think the licensing plan would solve the problem of rising drug costs and that more data was needed.