Heading into the final days before his midnight Monday deadline, Gov. Gavin Newsom will need to decide whether to sign or veto some 430 bills still on his desk.
So far, he鈥檚 blocked 102 of about 560 measures he鈥檚 acted on since the Legislature adjourned Aug. 31, or 18%. That compares to a 15% veto rate in 2023, when he . He had in 2022, including . In 2021, he vetoed .
While the Legislature can override vetoes, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate and that hasn鈥檛 happened . Governors can also allow bills to become law without their signature, but that .
So in most cases, lawmakers try again the next session, often tailoring their proposals to avoid Newsom鈥檚 veto pen.
鈥淚n most instances, legislators try to work with the governor and the governor鈥檚 administration in trying to address the concerns that are in the veto message, as opposed to saying simply that their approach is the right one,鈥� said veteran lobbyist Chris Micheli.
On some high-profile and contentious bills, whatever Newsom says publicly about why he issued a veto, there can be a healthy dose of politics involved 鈥� as well as the push and pull of various interest groups.
鈥淲hether it鈥檚 an election year or it鈥檚 not an election year, political considerations will impact not just the legislation going through the legislative process, but also whether or not a bill results in a gubernatorial signature or veto,鈥� Micheli said. 鈥淏ut that鈥檚 a small number by my estimate.鈥�
A Newsom spokesperson said the veto messages speak for themselves.
Here are the main reasons Newsom gives for his vetoes. (When he gives multiple reasons, it鈥檚 counted in all categories.)
It鈥檚 bad policy
Newsom cited policy problems as his reason for vetoing one third of the bills 鈥� the second largest category. These are bills that he didn鈥檛 agree with or had language that was too broad.
For example, would have let . In the governor鈥檚 , he wrote that the bill raises concerns about 鈥渢he reliability of evidence presented at a critical stage of criminal proceedings.鈥�
would have allowed candidates to use campaign funds to address mental health-related issues that arise during a campaign, but that it could allow for other changes to campaign fund use that go 鈥渂eyond what a reasonable donor would expect.鈥�
And aimed to let hospitals seek five more years to meet seismic safety standards. 鈥淚n the aftermath of an earthquake, not only would these hospitals be unable to provide emergency care to victims, but they would also require emergency response efforts to be diverted to rapidly evacuate and transfer patients to other facilities,鈥� Newsom said in his .
It鈥檇 strain the budget
For the third year in a row, the most common reason Newsom gave for vetoing a bill was budget concerns 鈥� about 40%.
Newsom and the Legislature had to make sweeping cuts to some programs and dip into the state鈥檚 reserves to . The deficit during the session to shelve hundreds of bills. The state鈥檚 financial crunch accounted for 41% of vetos last year, according to Micheli.
鈥淓very governor and his or her staff, they鈥檙e going to look at the policy implications. Second, the fiscal implications,鈥� Micheli said. 鈥淎 negative fiscal consideration this year, last year and the prior year has been an overriding factor in many instances.鈥�
For example, the governor vetoed , which would have allowed undocumented applicants to apply for a homebuyer assistance program. In his , Newsom wrote that there is 鈥渇inite funding鈥� available and that this change would have to be considered in the state budget.
Another bill that Newsom squashed because of the budget was , which would have provided funding so three counties could test .
But even if an author attempts to address their bill in the budget, it may not be enough. State Sen. , a Van Nuys Democrat, secured $5 million for , which would have required public high schools to provide condoms to students.
Newsom vetoed the bill, 鈥渙ne-time funding does not adequately address the fiscal concerns associated with this bill.鈥�
It may not be legal
For a couple of bills so far, Newsom said that courts should decide on an issue before he gives his signature.
His second veto of a bill relating to undocumented Californians, , would have let undocumented students work on campus. In his message, Newsom that, 鈥渋t is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding.鈥�
It鈥檚 up to local officials
Sometimes Newsom vetoes a bill because it鈥檚 an issue that could be solved at the local level.
For example, would have created a state task force to research reparations for people displaced in the Chavez Ravine area in Los Angeles. In his , Newsom wrote that it is 鈥渁n issue best addressed by stakeholders closest to the Chavez Ravine community.鈥�
It鈥檚 not needed
Newsom vetoed another large percentage of bills because he sees them as unnecessary given the work the state is already doing on an issue.
would have required Caltrans to conduct a road safety study and come up with an improvement plan. In Newsom鈥檚 message, that Caltrans is already working on road safety, so the bill would be redundant.
Despite the governor鈥檚 explanation of Caltrans鈥� current efforts, bill author Sen. , a Republican from Murrieta, wrote in a press release that he is 鈥渄eeply disappointed by the veto, as it sends a message that road safety isn鈥檛 being prioritized at a time when fatalities are on the rise.鈥�
would have required state homelessness programs to more closely track and report spending data. However, Newsom wrote in his that he鈥檚 already signed legislation that strengthens reporting requirements for California鈥檚 two largest programs.
That didn鈥檛 satisfy the bill author, Assemblymember , a Republican from Folsom. 鈥淕overnor Newsom is doubling down on his failed response to homelessness,鈥� . 鈥淥ur state has spent billions of taxpayer dollars in recent years only to see the homeless population increase statewide.鈥�
It鈥檚 too soon
Newsom dubbed another small portion of bills as 鈥減remature,鈥� such as , which would have banned agencies from staffing call centers with AI or automated decision-making systems if it gets rid of a human job.
Last year, Newsom signed an executive order for the state to evaluate how to use AI in its workforce, so the bill would create guidelines before the ones from the order are announced, he wrote in his .
would have allowed Californians who had land taken from them or their families for racially motivated reasons to apply for compensation. But implementing the bill is 鈥渋mpossible,鈥� , because there鈥檚 no agency to do so.
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.