Gray's Vetos

GRAY DAVIS HAS MANY REASONS to veto a bill. It might cost too much, it might annoy a special-interest group that gives him campaign money, it might scare him. CHRISTINE PELISEK examined a few of the 275 bills that Davis killed last year.

RIGHT TO PROTEST NONVIOLENTLY

Author: State Senator Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles)

Purpose of the bill: Nonviolent protesters now face county-jail sentences of 90 days to one year and fines up to $1,000. Senate Bill 1796 would have capped penalties at $100 and a maximum of two days in county jail for nonviolent civil disobedience, including trespassing (not on residential properties), unlawful assembly and public nuisance.

Reason for veto: Could lead to more jury trials and appeals and increase the cost of government.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT TASK FORCE

Author: State Assemblywoman Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park)

Purpose of the bill: Cases of domestic violence are on the rise, and only limited information is available on the effectiveness of court procedures to stop them. Assembly Bill 2652 would have established a Domestic Violence Court Task Force to assess the day-to-day operations of domestic-violence courts and recommend improvements.

Reason for veto: $100,000 cost to the general fund too high.

PROTECTIONS FOR GAY TEENS IN FOSTER CARE

Author: State Assemblywoman Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park)

Purpose of the bill: AB 2651 would have protected gay foster children from harassment or abuse by their foster parents and required the state Department of Social Services to increase education programs to include sexual-orientation sensitivity training. The bill also authorized the Department of Social Services to recruit gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender adults to become foster parents for children with similar sexual orientations.

Reason for veto: Department of Social Services already stretched too thin.

IMPROVING CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY

Author: State Senator Martha Escutia (D-Montebello)

Purpose of the bill: SB 783 would have made corporate officers and directors eligible for civil penalties of up to $100,000 if they did not notify the state attorney general or a government agency of fraud within their firm. The measure also provided employees with a whistle-blower hot line run by the attorney general. Critics say Davis deferred to the oil industry and manufacturers organizations that said that executives had the right to stay silent and should not be required to speak even if they knew about the fraud.

Reason for veto: Places liability on an employee who did not actually commit the wrongful act.

SLAPP SUITS

Author: State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles)

Purpose of the bill: SB 789 would have made it more difficult for big companies to sue the little people who publicly oppose them. Davis' signature would have made it easier for lawyers to fight anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) motions by corporations, which claim that their activities are protected commercial speech.

Reason for veto: Interferes with the court's discretion, saying the claims should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

PROTECTING SACRED INDIAN SITES

Author: State Senate Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco)

Purpose of the bill: SB 1828 would have given Native American tribes the chance to challenge projects by developers and public agencies that might harm sacred Indian sites. Tribes would have been notified of any proposals within a 20-mile radius of their lands in case the project might infringe on hallowed ground. The measure was partially written at the behest of the Quechan Indian Nation, which has been trying to prevent a gold mine from opening up near the Indian Pass area, a place the tribe considers sacred. Although supported by 50 California tribes, the sacred-sites-protection legislation was heavily opposed by businesses that believe that the bill could provide the legal means to stop statewide development. ä

Reason for veto: Gives tribes too much power over the California Environmental Quality Act process.

SAFE DRINKING WATER

Author: State Assemblyman Dario Frommer (D-Los Angeles)

Purpose of the bill: AB 1972 would have made consumers more aware of the health risks of contaminants found in drinking water. The levels of contaminants are now made public only when they exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by the state Department of Health Services. The measure would have required water systems to report contaminants that exceed their public-health goals.

Reason for veto: Cost of $75,000 too high; might overstate health risks.

RECYCLING TVS

Author: State Senator Byron Sher (D-Stanford)

Purpose of the bill: SB 1523 would have created a fund to pay for the recycling of thousands of televisions and computer monitors that are discarded daily in California. The bill would have added $10 to the sale price of every computer and television set sold in California beginning in 2004 and would have encouraged manufacturers, retailers and nonprofit groups to create recycling programs. Environmental groups say most people do not know that it is illegal to dispose of televisions and computers through regular trash pickup.

Reason for veto: Can't support creating 64 state jobs and a bureaucracy to run the program.

PROTECTION FROM RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Author: State Senator Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles)

Purpose of the bill: SB 1970, the Radiation Safety Act of 2002, would have stopped companies from disposing of radioactive waste in the state's 170 landfills. Instead, the waste would have been shipped to dumps licensed to handle such waste. The bill also would have barred businesses from recycling low-grade radioactive waste into consumer products. Nuclear-weapons contractors and biotech companies vigorously opposed the bill.