In the case of Jerry Brown, the volume of letters isn't as important as the content of a single letter.
A single well written legal opinion by a constitutional attorney, such as Alan Gura, written to Jerry Brown on the legal points of each new law and why it won't pass constitutional muster would have a much greater impact.
Jerry is after his legacy at this point. He wants to go down in history as the Governor who built the peripheral canal, or it's replacement, and high speed rail. He does not want to remebered as the Governor who signed a bunch of laws that all got challenenged and overturned in court and ended up costing the state millions of dollars in staff hours and opponents legal fees.
If the right attorney explains the weakness of the legislative efforts, he won't sign them. If his veto is overriden, that's not on him, but would probably help any lawsuit against unconstitutional law since I would imagine many in the courts regard the California Legislature as a collection of idealogues who have no idea what the word Constituion even means.
A single well written legal opinion by a constitutional attorney, such as Alan Gura, written to Jerry Brown on the legal points of each new law and why it won't pass constitutional muster would have a much greater impact.
Jerry is after his legacy at this point. He wants to go down in history as the Governor who built the peripheral canal, or it's replacement, and high speed rail. He does not want to remebered as the Governor who signed a bunch of laws that all got challenenged and overturned in court and ended up costing the state millions of dollars in staff hours and opponents legal fees.
If the right attorney explains the weakness of the legislative efforts, he won't sign them. If his veto is overriden, that's not on him, but would probably help any lawsuit against unconstitutional law since I would imagine many in the courts regard the California Legislature as a collection of idealogues who have no idea what the word Constituion even means.
Comment