State of emergency: COVID-19.
The passage of ACR196 would mark a significant shift in the state's management of the COVID-19 crisis, effectively curtailing the Governor's unilateral authority to adapt laws and regulations without legislative review. By ending the state of emergency, local jurisdictions would retain the power to manage their own emergency responses concerning the pandemic. The measure not only aims to reaffirm the Governor's accountability to the legislature but also to highlight the importance of local control during a time when many counties have expressed their readiness to reopen safely based on local assessments.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 196 (ACR196), introduced by Assembly Members Kiley and Gallagher, seeks to officially terminate the state of emergency that was proclaimed by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resolution reflects concerns over the extensive executive powers that the Governor has exercised during the emergency period, having issued 39 executive orders that reportedly altered around 200 laws within the California code. The resolution is rooted in the desire to restore the balance of powers between the legislative and executive branches of California's government, which some legislators perceive as having been disrupted during the pandemic response.
Supporters of ACR196 argue that the open-ended nature of the Governor's emergency powers is incompatible with democratic governance and threatens to undermine established legislative procedures. They cite concerns raised by the Legislative Analysts Office about the potential overreach of executive power. However, critics may fear that prematurely ending the emergency could jeopardize public health measures or hinder the state's capacity to respond to ongoing or future challenges related to COVID-19. As the debate unfolds, it remains critical to consider how this resolution influences the state's framework for managing emergencies and public health moving forward.