Opinion ID: 1431257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: official travel?

Text: A hidden weakness in the majority opinion is disclosed when we examine its reach. Californians are advised that  the sole and entire power to act as Governor is transferred to the Lieutenant Governor when he is within the state while the Governor is outside ( ante, p. 119; italics added). Similarly he has  complete, albeit temporary, responsibility; and he is free to act on whatever matters he determines need attention during the Governor's absence ( ante, p. 120; italics added). What those words overlook is that most travels by modern Governors are for official state purposes. Most trips involve something more than seeking federal office, exploring a distant continent, or vacationing with family or friends. Yet if the Lieutenant Governor truly does have the sole and entire power, if his duties do involve complete ... responsibility, if he is free to act on whatever matters he determines need attention, then may he not legally intervene in the official projects of the traveling Governor? To illustrate: How should a Congressional committee respond if a telegram or phone call from a Sacramento-based Lieutenant Governor purports to negate the on-going testimony of a Governor who is in Washington, D.C., to describe California's emergency needs? When the Governor is absent here but present there, who articulates authoritatively our state's concerns at the out-of-state headquarters of the innumerable officials who, pursuant to negotiations that might involve the Governor, supply federal funds for state use? Who speaks and acts for California at Governors' sessions, at formal meetings with other-state and overseas investors, at innumerable other outside forums where the Governor's main concerns demonstrably are official concerns? The majority opinion fails to recognize those questions. It ignores even more intricate questions as to the need for limitations on a Lieutenant Governor's power to undermine indirectly, in Sacramento, gubernatorial projects outside the state that for various reasons an ambitious Lieutenant Governor might not wish to countermand or modify directly. Finally, the majority's words are so comprehensive that they may even authorize improbable, yo-yo-like contests regarding rescission or revocation of prior acts of the Governor. In this case, for example, what might have happened if the Lieutenant Governor, after March 28, 1979, and during a subsequent absence of the Governor, had withdrawn the Jefferson appointment and reappointed Arabian? I conclude by quoting the possibly prophetic comment of a legislator during the 1966 committee hearings: Assuming we have a Democratic Governor and a Republican Lieutenant Governor, I can see the court getting into the midst of a tremendous political brawl....