The Missing Case of Checks and Balances: The California Veto Override

Photo Credit: Jim Vondruska/New York Times

Like many young people who grew up in California, I view my state as a bastion of liberal progress and a place where democracy is truly at work. Not burdened by a powerful, obstructionist oppositional party, it seemed to me that this was a place where ideas I believed in could be put into practice. In many ways, this is true. California has been a leader in climate adaptation strategies, campaign finance reform, and many other issues I am passionate about. However, recent history has shown that rather than an obstructionist opposition party, an obstructionist governor has wreaked havoc on the California progressive agenda.

But, upon further research, I discovered this is not just recent history. The governor of California has the unanimous authority to decide what does and does not become law in the state. Now, this is not by design, as, in theory, the California Legislature can override the governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. However, since 1979, when the legislature overrode four vetoes, the California Legislature has not overridden a single veto. Over the past 32 years, Democrats have held a trifecta in California for 19 years, including the last eleven. Yet, astonishingly, not one veto has been overridden during this time.

In the most recent legislative session, Governor Newsom vetoed 183 out of 990 measures that came to his desk — a remarkable 18 percent. Despite nearly all of these bills passing with a two-thirds majority in both houses, the veto signaled the end of the story for each of these bills. What happened? Where did the power of the veto override go? Why does the California Legislature, with a Democratic supermajority, refuse to override vetoes that had supermajority support while passing? In this article, I will examine these questions to find some answers and reckon with what this means for the state of democracy in the state.

There are two answers to why the California legislature no longer uses the veto override in the present day.

First, California’s legislature has a unique approach to the veto override: choosing not to use it. To illustrate this point, it is important to understand that the California legislature passes more bills than they believe will become law.

The practice of introducing bills that never intend to become law is nothing new or unique to California. In the House of Representatives, the practice known as messaging bills is widespread. The 435 members of Congress introduce bills that they know never have a chance of passing but show constituents (or interest groups) they are at least doing something. To illustrate this point, in the 118th Congress, only 2 percent of bills introduced have become law.

In Congress, this practice is easy; the house is divided and the chance of a single party gaining a supermajority is nearly impossible. However, in the Democratic trifecta of California, if a bill introduced by a Democratic assemblymember reaches the floor, then there is no legitimate reason it should not pass. Therefore, the California Legislature can bullrush legislation. In the most recent legislative session (since May), the legislature passed 990 bills, while in the 118th Congress, only 320 bills have passed.

Therefore, the legislature has adopted the practice of a governor’s veto as a filtering tool. For those bills that they may not want to vote against for political reasons, they can send them off to the chopping block — also known as the governor’s desk. While congress members may use the opposition party as a means of blocking pure messaging bills, the California Legislature uses the governor.

The second reason behind the disappearance of the veto override is less political and more out of spite. The governor has multiple powers at his disposal to execute revenge on any legislator who dares attempt such a forbidden practice, including vetoing future bills and artificially marking up the costs of a bill by directing the Department of Finance. If a legislature attempts to initiate the process of overriding a veto, the governor may take this as a personal affront. Thus, if that legislator passes more bills in the future, the governor may go out of his way to veto those bills out of pure spite rather than the bill’s content. Since the veto override is so rare, such revenge would go unpunished. Further, the governor has the power to direct the California Department of Finance to mark up bills as more expensive to prevent them from going out of committee.

In essence, the governor has a lot of means at his disposal to make life a living hell for any legislator who dares cross him. The governor is the leader of the state party, and crossing him could mean the end of your political career. The governor could veto future bills and manipulate funding, creating a chilling effect that discourages dissent and opposition. Thus, out of self-protection and party loyalty, legislators prefer to introduce the bill in the next session rather than attempt an override.

Now that there is some understanding of why the legislature does not override vetoes, the question arises of whether this practice is a good or a bad one. In my opinion, it mocks our democratic system and removes an essential tool used in the system of checks and balances. Just as a veto is a powerful tool to check the legislative process, the veto override is just as important a tool to prevent an all-powerful governor. What does it matter if a bill passes when the legislator isn’t the one deciding whether it should be law? If a bill is passed, it ultimately depends on the governor’s discretion, which should not be the case in a true democratic system.

By using the veto as a political tool, legislatures are just as liable as petty governors. Storing an important tool for checking executive power in the closet because legislators do not want to face the hard political truth hurts our democratic system. The governor’s veto has become the king’s — it is the final say, and no one can do anything about it. If the legislature cares about a bill so deeply as to pass it, it should be prepared, in some cases, to override a veto. Doing nothing demeans the power of a legislator’s vote and limits all political agendas to only the governors. This has been showcased as Governor Newsom has run to the center in a bid to make himself a viable candidate for a future presidential run, blocking a wide variety of progressive bills in the process. What kind of democratic system is it if one man’s political objectives determine what becomes law? Changes must be made to bring true democratic ideals back to the state of California.

What can be done about this problem? Well, that’s a tricky question. The second reason for the lack of veto overrides — the spiteful governor — can be changed pretty easily. In 2026, Governor Newsom will exit, and a new governor will be chosen. After the new governor is sworn in, the California Legislature can make a change by breaking from their old ways and beginning to override bills. Making it a (slightly more) common practice will take away the incentive to treat every override as a personal affront.

Solving the first reason for the lack of veto override is more problematic. Politics is a game in which legislators are incentivized to do what is best for them to stay in office. When the override is a tool legislators can use that helps them pass popular yet unrealistic bills without dealing with the consequences, they have no reason to abandon it. They want to introduce and pass these bills to signal to constituents or lobbyists that they are working in their interest; thus, there is no easy fix to this problem.

A shift in the political makeup of the legislature and a loss of the Democratic supermajority could help solve this problem by making the California Legislature more like the U.S. House of Representatives, but that does not seem likely to occur anytime soon. Therefore, apart from a cultural or political shift, there doesn’t seem to be a solution.

The Democratic supermajority will continue to ram through bills for political gain and expect the governor to take the blame for killing it, hurting our democratic system in the process. As much as I dislike this, it unfortunately seems to be a political reality. Maybe this practice will change, but, as of now, it is here to stay.