St. John's Well Child & Family Center v. Schwarzenegger

Opinion

We granted review in this original writ proceeding to address the propriety of the Governor’s use of the so-called “line-item veto” under the asserted authority of article IV, section 10, subdivision (e) of the California Constitution, to further reduce funding that already had been reduced by the Legislature in its midyear adjustments to the Budget Act of 2009. The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, denied the requested writ of mandate and upheld the Governor’s action. Upon review, we agree with that court’s disposition of the matter. Because the Court of Appeal’s decision (by Kline, P. J., with Lambden & Richman, JJ., concurring) persuasively sets forth and analyzes the issues presented by this case, we adopt substantial parts of it as our own, as modified below to fully reflect our views and to address the arguments that differ from those advanced in the appellate court. 1

I.

Although the current economic downturn affects all Californians, many persons are particularly vulnerable because they receive essential health and *965 welfare assistance from agencies dependent upon state tax revenues. In this setting, government must choose between and among equally needy groups, knowing that many of those groups not fully funded may be devastated.

In the context of the constitutionally prescribed budget process, the power to appropriate public funds belongs exclusively to the Legislature. With respect to a bill containing appropriations, the Governor has three options: (1) to sign the bill, (2) to veto the measure in its entirety (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 10, subd. (a)), or (3) to “reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation” (id., subd. (e), italics added (hereafter article IV, section 10(e))). The question posed by this case is whether the Governor exceeded his limited powers under article IV, section 10(e), by using his line-item authority to further reduce funding levels set forth in midyear reductions that the Legislature had made to the Budget Act of 2009 (Stats. 2009, 3d Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 1, approved by Governor, Feb. 20, 2009) (hereafter 2009 Budget Act)), thereby imposing a reduction of appropriated sums greater than the reduction made by the Legislature.

Petitioners include St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, a nonprofit network of five community health centers and six school-based climes in medically underserved areas of Los Angeles County, and other entities and individuals located throughout the state whose programs and lives will be drastically affected by the further reductions here at issue. 2

Respondents are Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of the State of California, and John Chiang, who, as the Controller of the State of California, is responsible for the administration of the state’s finances, including disbursement of funds appropriated by law. 3 The Controller does not take a position on the merits of this litigation.

*966 Interveners are Darrell Steinberg, in his official capacity as President pro Tempore of the California State Senate, and in his personal capacity as a resident and taxpayer of Sacramento County, and John Pérez, in his official capacity as Speaker of the California Assembly. Several amici curiae have filed briefs supporting the various parties. 4

Petitioners and interveners contend that the action taken by the Governor exceeded constitutional limits, because the individual budget cuts he made were not imposed on “items of appropriation” (art. IV, § 10(e)) that could be individually vetoed or reduced. They further contend that, in taking this action, the Governor purported to exercise authority belonging solely to the Legislature, in violation of article III, section 3 of the California Constitution.

Petitioners and interveners sought original relief in the Court of Appeal (pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 387, 1085; & Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.485 et seq.) to enjoin the Controller from enforcing or taking any steps to enforce the Governor’s actions concerning certain provisions of Assembly Bill No. 1 (2009-2010 4th Ex. Sess.) (hereafter Assembly Bill 4X 1), as revised by the Governor’s line-item reduction of funding with regard to those provisions. (See Assem. Bill 4X 1, as amended by Sen., July 23, 2009, and approved by Governor, July 28, 2009 (hereafter Governor’s July 28 Message) [with certain deletions, revisions, and reductions], enacted as Stats. 2009, 4th Ex. Sess. 2009-2010, ch. 1 (hereafter revised 2009 Budget Act).) Because of the importance and urgency of the issues presented, the Court of Appeal exercised its original jurisdiction (Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492, 500 [286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 340 [276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077]; see also Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 262-265 [226 Cal.Rptr. 361]), issued an order to show cause, and held argument. That court thereafter issued a decision denying the petition for a *967 writ of mandate. 5 As noted above, we agree with most of the analysis of the Court of Appeal and with the conclusion it reached, and thus we shall deny the petition for a writ of mandate.

n.

On February 20, 2009, the Governor signed into law the 2009 Budget Act, which set forth various appropriations of state funds for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Thereafter, California’s economy worsened; the revenue assumptions upon which the 2009 Budget Act was based proved to be far too optimistic, and the state’s overall cashflow positions continued to deteriorate. The Governor, pursuant to California Constitution, article IV, section 10, subdivision (f) proclaimed a fiscal crisis, 6 and the Legislature assembled in *968 special session to address the fiscal emergency. Following months of negotiations, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 4X 1 on July 23, 2009. The final revised budget package enacted as Assembly Bill 4X 1 consisted of 547 pages, set forth in 583 sections, and represented an effort to address more than $24 billion in budget shortfalls, including $15.6 billion in cuts, nearly $4 billion in additional revenues, more than $2 billion in borrowing, approximately $1.5 billion in fund shifts, and more than $1 billion in deferrals and other adjustments.

On July 28, 2009, the Governor exercised his line-item authority to reduce or eliminate several items contained in Assembly Bill 4X 1, and then signed the measure into law. (Revised 2009 Budget Act.) The Governor eliminated numerous separate line items contained in various sections of Assembly Bill 4X 1. The effect of these reductions was to further decrease the total amount appropriated in the 2009 Budget Act by more than $488 million. Many of the items reduced by the Governor already had been reduced by the Legislature in Assembly Bill 4X 1 from the amounts appropriated in the 2009 Budget Act. The Governor’s signing message explained that his cuts to the spending bill were for the most part designed “to increase the reserve and to reduce the state’s structural deficit.” (Governor’s July 28 Message [concerning Assem. Bill 4X 1, §§ 18.00, 18.10, 18.20, 18.40]; see also ibid, [same, concerning §§ 17.50, 18.50].)

This original mandamus proceeding by petitioners and interveners followed, 7 challenging the Governor’s use of line-item reductions with respect *969 to seven sections of Assembly Bill 4X 1—specifically, section 568 and sections 570 through 575. 8 The Governor’s actions affected those seven sections of Assembly Bill 4X 1 in the following manner:

Section 17.50 further reduced the General Fund appropriation for the State Department of Aging by $6,160,000;

Section 18.00, subdivision (a) further reduced the General Fund appropriation for local assistance of the Medi-Cal program by $60,569,000, and section 18.00, subdivision (e) eliminated funding for community clinic programs;

Section 18.10 further reduced funding for various programs administered by the Office of AIDS by $52,133,000, further reduced funding for the Domestic Violence Program by $16,337,000, 9 further reduced funding for the *970 Adolescent Family Life Program by $9,000,000, and further reduced funding for the Black Infant Health Program by $3,003,000;

Section 18.20 further reduced funding for the Healthy Families Program by $50,000,000;

Section 18.30 further reduced funding for the Regional Center Purchase of Services for children up to the age of five years by $50,000,000;

Section 18.40 further reduced funding for the Caregiver Resource Centers by $4,082,000; and

Section 18.50 further reduced funding for the In-Home Supportive Services program by $37,555,000.

HI.

The question presented by this case as a matter of first impression is whether, after the Legislature has made midyear reductions to appropriations that originally appeared in the 2009 Budget Act, the Governor’s line-item power encompasses the authority to make further reductions. Although this particular issue is novel, we find guidance. in our decision in Harbor v. Deukmejian (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1078 [240 Cal.Rptr. 569, 742 P.2d 1290] (Harbor), in which we extensively described the constitutional framework within which a Governor exercises his or her line-item authority.

“The California Constitution declares that the legislative power of the state is vested in the Legislature (art. IV, § 1) and the executive power [is vested] in the Governor (art. [V], § 1). Unless permitted by the Constitution, the Governor may not exercise legislative powers. (Art. Ill, § 3.) He may veto a bill ‘by returning it with any objections to the house of origin,’ and it will become law only if ‘each house then passes the bill by rollcall vote . . . two thirds of the membership concurring . . . .’ [(Cal. Const., art. IV, § 10, subd. (a).)] If the Governor fails to act within a certain period of time, the measure becomes law without his signature. (Art. IV, § 10, subd. [(b)].) The Governor’s veto power is more extensive with regard to appropriations. He may ‘reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation while approving other portions of a bill.’ Such items may be passed over his veto in the same *971 manner as vetoed bills. (Art. IV, § 10, subd. [(e)].)” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1084, italics added.) 10

Our decision in Harbor, agreeing with the petitioners in that case, observed: “[I]n vetoing legislation, the Governor acts in a legislative capacity, and ... in order to preserve the system of checks and balances upon which our government is founded, he may exercise legislative power only in the manner expressly authorized by the Constitution.” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1084.) Because the Constitution authorizes the Governor only “to veto a ‘bill’ or to reduce or eliminate ‘items of appropriation^] ’ the Governor may not veto part of a bill which is not an ‘item of appropriation.’ ” (Ibid.)

After tracking the historical development of the veto power from its origins in Rome, where the tribune of plebeians had the power to disapprove measures recommended by the senate, we explained in Harbor that “[t]he word, ‘veto’ means T forbid’ in Latin. Then, as now, the effect of the veto was negative, frustrating an act without substituting anything in its place.” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1085, citing Zinn, The Veto Power of the President (1951) 12 F.R.D. 209.) After evolving in the United States as “an integral part of the system of checks and balances” (Harbor, at p. 1085), the veto power at the federal level has been circumscribed by the limitation that the President may approve or reject a bill in its entirety, but may not select portions of a bill for disapproval. “As a much-quoted early case commented, ‘the executive, in every republican form of government, has only a qualified and destructive legislative function, and never creative legislative power.’ (State v. Holder (1898) 76 Miss. 158 [23 So. 643, 645].)” (Harbor, at p. 1086.) Significantly, although “the rule prohibiting selective exercise of the *972 veto is unyielding in the federal system, most states have provided an exception for items of appropriation.” (Ibid.; see Thirteenth Guam Legislature v. Bordallo (D. Guam 1977) 430 F.Supp. 405, 410.)

“In California, the Constitution of 1849 included a gubernatorial veto provision similar to that contained in the United States Constitution. (Cal. Const, of 1849, art. IV, § 17 . . . .) The Constitution of 1879 added the item veto power, allowing the Governor to ‘object to one or more items’ of appropriation in a bill which contained several ‘items of appropriation.’ (Cal. Const, of 1879, art. IV, § 16.) By constitutional initiative in 1922, the Governor was empowered not only to eliminate ‘items of appropriation’ but to reduce them, while approving other portions of a bill. (Art. IV, § 10, subd. [(e)].) The 1922 amendment also directed the Governor to submit a budget to the Legislature containing his recommendation for state expenditures. (Art. IV, § 12, subd..(a).)” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1086, italics added, citation omitted.)

The ballot argument in favor of the 1922 constitutional initiative that empowered the Governor to exercise line-item authority to reduce an item of appropriation stated in relevant part: “The budget system will save the taxpayer money, because all state appropriations will be handled in a business way, duplications prevented and extravagance avoided. The proposed measure will also enable the Governor to reduce an appropriation to meet the financial condition of the treasury, which under our present system he can not do. Frequently a worthy measure is vetoed because the legislature passes a bill carrying an appropriation for which sufficient funds are not available. Under present conditions the Governor is compelled to veto the act, no matter how meritorious, because of the excessive appropriation, whereas, if he had the power given by the proposed constitutional amendment, he could approve the bill with a modified appropriation to meet the condition of the treasury.” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec., supra, argument in favor of Prop. 12, pp. 78-79, italics added.)

Neither the so-called “item veto,” nor the “line-item veto” allowing the Governor to eliminate or reduce items of appropriation, confers the power to selectively veto general legislation. (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1087; Lukens v. Nye (1909) 156 Cal. 498, 501-503 [105 P. 593].) The Governor has no authority to veto part of a bill that is not an “item of appropriation.” (Harbor, at pp. 1084—1085, 1088-1089.) “[A]rticle III, section 3 provides that one branch of government may not exercise the powers granted to *973 another ‘except as permitted by this Constitution.’ Case law, commentators, and historians have long recognized that in exercising the veto the Governor acts in a legislative capacity. [Citations.] ... [1] It follows that in exercising the power of the veto the Governor may act only as permitted by the Constitution. That authority is to veto a ‘bill’ (art. IV, § 10, subd. (a)) or to ‘reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation’ (id., subd. [(e)].)” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1088-1089.)

The dispositive issue, then, is whether the funding in question—specified in the seven sections of Assembly Bill 4X 1 that the Governor further reduced—encompassed “items of appropriation” (art. IV, § 10(e)) as to which the Governor could exercise his line-item authority.

rv.

Petitioners and interveners contend that, because the items at issue in Assembly Bill 4X 1 reduced the amounts previously appropriated in the 2009 Budget Act, these items were not “appropriations.” They maintain that a “reduction” cannot be an “appropriation,” and observe that there are no instances in which a California governor previously has exercised line-item authority in this manner.

Subsequent to the passage of the 1922 constitutional amendment empowering the Governor to exercise line-item authority, we addressed in two significant decisions the question of what constitutes an “item of appropriation” subject to the Governor’s line-item power. (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1078; Wood v. Riley (1923) 192 Cal. 293 [219 P. 966].) We review these cases for guidance.

A.

1.

Wood v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. 293, was decided in 1923, shortly after the Constitution was amended to allow the Governor to use line-item authority to reduce as well as to eliminate “items of appropriation.” That case involved the Legislature’s action of adding to a budget bill a proviso requiring the Controller to transfer to the State Department of Education, as an additional administrative allotment for the department, 1 percent of the appropriations that had been set aside for salaries and support of several teachers’ colleges and special schools. (Wood v. Riley, at pp. 294-296.) The' Governor vetoed this set-aside proviso. (Id., at p. 296.) The Director of Education sought to enforce the proviso, notwithstanding the Governor’s disapproval, arguing that the Governor had attempted to veto part of a *974 sentence in an appropriation bill that did not appropriate money, but that simply provided for a transfer, as a matter of bookkeeping, of a percentage of funds already appropriated. (Id., at p. 297; see Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1091, fn. 13.) We upheld the exercise of the veto, finding that although the set-aside proviso took no new money from the state treasury, the proviso nevertheless constituted “a specific setting aside of an amount, not exceeding a definite fixed, sum, for the payment of certain particular claims or demands .... It appears in no other light than as amounting to an item of appropriation in that it adds an additional amount to the funds already provided for the administration of the office of the director of education through the sums appropriated for the use of the state board of education and the superintendent of public instruction. This court has held that ‘by a specific appropriation’ was understood ‘an Act by which a named sum of money has been set apart in the treasury and devoted to the payment of a particular claim or demand[.] The proviso, therefore, appears to fill all the requirements of a distinct item of appropriation of so much of a definite sum of money as may be required for a designated purpose connected with the state government.” (Wood v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. at pp. 303-304, italics added.)

This court also was persuaded that the Legislature had sought to insulate from the veto an additional appropriation for the “general administrative office” within the department—something the Legislature would have had no authority to do had it directly appropriated funds for that office. (Wood v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. at pp. 304-305.) We explained: “It is very clear that the situation presented is that no appropriation having been recommended by the Governor, or included in the proposed budget bill, for the payment of the ‘salaries and support of the general administrative office of the division of normal and special schools,’ other than the general provisions for the support of the state board of education and the state superintendent of schools, the legislature attempted, by the inclusion of the proviso in the bill, to make such additional appropriation for such purpose under the guise of an administrative allotment. Therefore, looked at in the light of what it was intended to accomplish, and what it would have accomplished if allowed to stand, one cannot escape the conviction that it worked an appropriation. It added a specific amount to the allowance already made for the use of the state board of education and the state superintendent of schools.” (Ibid.) We concluded the Legislature could not “by indirection, defeat the purpose of the constitutional amendment giving the Governor-power to control the expenditures of the state, when it could not accomplish that purpose directly or by an express provision in appropriation bills.” (Id., at p. 305.) In other words, we determined in Wood v. Riley that a provision that took no additional funds from the state treasury nevertheless constituted an “appropriation” under the *975 newly adopted constitutional provision—and hence that this provision was subject to the Governor’s proper exercise of his line-item authority.

2.

Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1078, involved the Legislature’s enactment of a budget for the 1984-1985 fiscal year. One item in the proposed budget was an appropriation of more than $1.5 billion for Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). Ten days later, the Legislature passed a trailer bill containing 71 sections enacting, amending, and repealing numerous provisions in various codes. (Sen. Bill No. 1379 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.) enacted as Stats. 1984, ch. 268, p. 1302.) The trailer bill was to become operative only in the event the Budget Act of 1984 (1984 Budget Act) also was enacted. (Stats. 1984, ch. 268, § 70, p. 1407.) Among the trailer bill’s provisions was section 45.5 (Stats. 1984, ch. 268, § 45.5, p. 1383 (hereafter section 45.5)), amending the Welfare and Institutions Code to allow AFDC benefits to be paid under certain circumstances from the date a benefits application was made, rather than from when the application was processed. (Harbor, at pp. 1082-1083.) In approving the 1984 Budget Act, the Governor reduced by more than $9 million the item containing the AFDC allotment. Two days later, he approved the trailer bill, but purported to veto section 45.5 relating to the timing of the benefits payments. (Harbor, at pp. 1082-1083.)

On review, we held that the Governor’s purported veto of section 45.5, relating to timing of the benefits, was unauthorized, because this provision was not an “item of appropriation,” and hence the Governor could not selectively veto the item without vetoing the entire bill. (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1090-1091.) 11 In making the determination that section 45.5 was not an “item of appropriation,” we recognized that “[t]he term has been defined in various ways. Wood v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. 293, 303, defines it as ‘a specific setting aside of an amount, not exceeding a definite sum, for the payment of certain particular claims or demands . . . not otherwise expressly provided for in the appropriation bill.’ It ‘adds an additional amount to the funds already provided.’ In Bengzon [v. Secretary of Justice (1937) 299 U.S. 410 [81 L.Ed. 312, 57 S.Ct. 252]] the term was described as a bill whose ‘primary and specific aim ... is to make appropriations of money from the public treasury.’ (299 U.S. 410 at p. 413 [81 L.Ed. 312 at p. 314].) Other cases employ somewhat different definitions (e.g., Jessen Associates, Inc. v. *976 Bullock (Tex. 1975) 531 S.W.2d 593, 599 [‘setting aside or dedicating of funds for a specified purpose’]; Commonwealth v. Dodson (1940) 176 Va. 281 [11 S.E.2d 120, 127] [‘an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose’]).” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1089.)

We determined that the provision at issue did not qualify “as an item of appropriation under any of these definitions. It does not set aside money for the payment of any claim and makes no appropriation from the public treasury, nor does it add any additional amount to funds already provided for. Its effect is substantive. Like thousands of other statutes, it directs that a department of government act in a particular manner with regard to certain matters. Although as is common with countless other measures, the direction contained therein will require the expenditure of funds from the treasury, this does not transform a substantive measure to an item of appropriation. We agree with petitioners that section 45.5 only expresses the Legislature’s intention that the AFDC appropriation, whatever its amount, must be used to provide benefits to recipients from the date of application under certain circumstances.” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1089-1090.)

We proceeded to reject the Governor’s complaint that the Legislature had attempted to separate the appropriation and its purpose into discrete measures in order to evade a veto of the entire indivisible measure. (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1090-1091.) We observed: “Both were specified in the [1984] Budget Act, that is, over $1.5 billion was appropriated for the purpose of funding AFDC. The Governor is bound by this ‘purpose’ as set forth in the budget. If the Legislature chooses to budget by a lump sum appropriation, [the Governor] may eliminate or reduce the amount available for the purpose as set forth therein. Here, the Governor not only reduced the ‘item of appropriation’ as set forth in the budget, but he divided it into its supposed component parts, assigned a purpose and amount to the part he disapproved, reduced the total by that amount, and attempted to veto a portion of a substantive bill which he claims contains the ‘subject of the appropriation.’ We are aware of no authority that even remotely supports the attempted exercise of the veto in this manner.” (Id., at pp. 1090-1091.)

Finally, we concluded that even the Legislature’s attempt to avoid the Governor’s veto did not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that section 45.5 was not an “item of appropriation.” We found that no definition of the term “item of appropriation” as used in the Constitution—including the use of that term in Wood v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. 293—could “reasonably embrace a provision like section 45.5, which does not set aside a sum of money to be paid from the public treasury.” (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1092.) We explained that the circumstance that “in Wood the term ‘item of appropriation’ was construed in such a way as to facilitate the Governor’s power to *977 veto a portion of the budget bill which could reasonably be encompassed within the meaning of that term does not provide authority for holding . . . that the Governor may veto part of a general bill—a power denied him by the Constitution—in order to foil an alleged legislative attempt to evade the veto.” (Id., at p. 1092.) 12

B.

As in the situation presented in Wood v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. 293, and unlike that before the court in Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1078, the challenged items presented to the Governor in Assembly Bill 4X 1 each “appear[] to fill all the requirements of a distinct item of appropriation of so much of a definite sum of money as may be required for a designated purpose connected with the state government.” (Wood v. Riley, at p. 304, italics added.) Assembly Bill 4X 1 “set aside a sum of money to be paid from the public treasury” (Harbor, at p. 1092), albeit a sum smaller than that initially appropriated in the 2009 Budget Act.

Petitioners, interveners, and their amici curiae insist that only an increase in spending authority can constitute an appropriation. They emphasize that none of the definitions of “item of appropriation” contained in the cases refer to a decrease in the spending authorized by a previously enacted budget, and they maintain that such a reduction may not be deemed an item of appropriation. They further argue that because the 2009 Budget Act already had set aside sums of money to be paid by the treasury for specific purposes, those items and the sections of Assembly Bill 4X 1 that proposed only reductions to existing, previously enacted appropriations did not satisfy the requirement of money set aside for a particular purpose. The argument, in other words, is that a reduction in a set-aside cannot itself be considered a set-aside or an appropriation. We disagree.

*978 The cases do not require, as petitioners and interveners suggest, that solely items that add amounts to funds already provided can constitute “items of appropriation.” We concluded that Governor Deukmejian’s claim failed in Harbor because section 45.5 of the trailer bill did not qualify “as an item of appropriation under any of [the] definitions” we reviewed. (Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1089, italics added.) We observed that the provision “does not set aside money for the payment of any claim and makes no appropriation from the public treasury, nor does it add any additional amount to funds already provided for. Its effect is substantive.” (Ibid., italics added.) Furthermore, unlike section 45.5 at issue in Harbor, which did not refer to any sum of money, much less a definite or ascertainable sum, the Assembly Bill 4X 1 items here at issue specified definite amounts by which the original appropriations would be reduced.

Whether spending authority is increased or decreased, it still fundamentally remains spending authority. Although described as reductions in specified items and sections, each of the provisions at issue in Assembly Bill 4X 1 nevertheless directs the “specific setting aside of an amount, not exceeding a definite fixed sum, for the payment of certain particular claims or demands.” (Wood v. Riley, supra, 192 Cal. at p. 303; see Harbor, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1092.) The items in Assembly Bill 4X 1 that were eliminated or further reduced by the Governor’s exercise of line-item authority capped the spending authority at an amount less than that set forth in the 2009 Budget Act. The Controller could not thereafter disburse, nor could the recipients of the funds thereafter draw upon, any amount larger than that set aside by the Legislature for the specified purposes. (Wood v. Riley, at p. 303 [once enacted, an appropriation “ ‘cannot be thereafter increased except by further legislative appropriation’ ”], citing, among other authority, Stratton v. Green (1872) 45 Cal. 149, 151.)

There is no substantive difference between a Governor’s reduction of an item of appropriation in the original 2009 Budget Act, to which interveners and petitioners raise no objection, and a Governor’s reduction of that same item in a subsequent amendment to the 2009 Budget Act—that is, Assembly Bill 4X 1. Both actions involve changes in authorized spending.

Interveners insist in their reply brief that the Governor was entitled, in essence, to only one bite at the budget apple. They concede that although he “had the authority to reduce or eliminate each of the items of appropriation at issue here when they were first passed in February, 2009,” he nevertheless did not possess that same authority a few months later with regard to “the legislative reductions made in July.” We discern no reason why the Governor should have the power to reduce items of appropriation when first enacted, and yet not retain that same power when the Legislature, in response to *979 changed circumstances, sees fit to amend those same appropriations. In both instances, the Governor holds constitutionally granted authority to reduce the allocation of state expenditures. 13

Adoption of the view advanced by petitioners, interveners, and their amici curiae that the legislative provisions at issue were not “items of appropriation” would permit the Legislature, in a single bill, to selectively make multiple reductions in previous appropriations, leaving the Governor only the power to veto the entire bill—a limitation that the 1922 amendment to article IV of the California Constitution specifically was designed to eliminate. (See, ante, at p. 972.) Indeed, as we earlier observed, that amendment was promoted in order to permit the Governor to “reduce an appropriation to meet the financial condition of the treasury” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec., supra, argument in favor of Prop. 12, p. 79, italics added), and we are unaware of any evidence or authority suggesting that the drafters of that measure and the voters who enacted article IV, section 10(e) intended that the Governor should be precluded from exercising such line-item authority in order to further reduce authorized funding following a legislative act that itself reduced such funding in response to an ongoing and mounting fiscal crisis. Moreover, if spending reductions are not considered to be items of appropriation (and hence are not subject to a two-thirds vote requirement), a simple *980 legislative majority would be able to overturn a two-thirds vote on the annual budget act. We decline to construe the phrase “items of appropriation” in such a manner. 14

C.

Our determination that the challenged actions concerned authorized reductions of “items of appropriation” is further supported by the structure and content of Assembly Bill 4X 1 itself.

We begin with the observation that this bill constitutes an amendment to the 2009 Budget Act. (See People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1027 [103 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 222 P.3d 186] (Kelly) [“an amendment includes a legislative act that changes an existing . . . statute by taking away from it”]; Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Swoap (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1187, 1199 [219 Cal.Rptr. 664] [an amendment is a legislative act changing prior or existing law by adding or taking from it some particular provision].) As noted above, this extensive and multi-itemed budget bill contains hundreds of sections, some of which increased spending over what was appropriated in the 2009 Budget Act. 15 In many other respects, Assembly Bill 4X 1 decreased numerous appropriations made in the 2009 Budget Act.

The lengthy title of Assembly Bill 4X 1 describes the measure as follows: “An act to amend and supplement the Budget Act of 2009 ... by amending Items [there follows a list of more than 350 items by number] of, by adding Items [there follows a list of more than 100