Even Though Newsom Reduces Some of the State’s Pandemic Requirements, It Leaves the State in a State of Emergency |Latest News
While Republican lawmakers criticised Gov. Gavin Newsom for not ending the almost two-year-long state of emergency, Newsom on Friday issued a series of executive orders rescinding COVID-19-related directives.
All state-owned properties must be made available for emergency usage, and state agencies must establish facilities for accommodation and medical care, according to a summary of 19 clauses in presidential orders that would be immediately revoked.
According to Newsom’s office, another 18 provisions, including those that safeguard COVID-19 relief monies from garnishment and allow for virtual corporate and public meetings, will expire at the end of March as well. In addition, on June 30th, executive orders restricting telemedicine platforms’ liability for data breaches and allowing video examinations for patients with COVID-19 symptoms who receive in-home supportive care will be withdrawn.
California’s COVID-19 state of emergency, however, must remain in place because it is important to maintain the state’s COVID response, according to Newsom administration officials. For example, the Democratic governor disregarded restrictions and statutes so that California may have enough hospital capacity in the event of another rise in cases.
Those who have benefited from these provisions include families, communities, and even individuals, says Mark Ghaly, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. Having one of the lowest death rates in a large state isn’t an accident or a fluke.
As of March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom has issued 70 executive orders related to the COVID-19 epidemic, including a moratorium on evictions and a postponement of the 2020 tax return filing date. Most of them have been revoked or are no longer in effect.
The governor of California has broad powers under the California Emergency Services Act of 1970 to respond in the event of an emergency, such as a pandemic. Even monies intended for completely other purposes by the California Legislature can be diverted to help in an emergency by the governor who has the authority to “create, amend and rescind” regulations and statutes and to suspend or rescind them. The governor also has the power to seize private property, such as hospitals, medical laboratories, and hotels and motels, in the event of an emergency.
In 2021, the California Supreme Court upheld an appeals court decision that supported Newsom’s emergency powers. There were two Republican state lawmakers who questioned Governor Newsom’s authority to issue an executive order ordering the mailing of ballots to the 22 million registered voters in California by November 3, 2020.
Legislation passed by both houses of Congress to end a declared state of emergency is constitutional because it requires both the governor and the legislature to act quickly to do it.
Republicans have been urging the Democratic-controlled legislature to act for more than a year. But it wasn’t until last week that Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) agreed to conduct a hearing on the idea, which is now slated for March 15.
“While acknowledging that these executive decrees can be repealed, he nonetheless claims to have the authority to control the state by decree. The Emergency Services Act makes it crystal plain that the governor must call off the state of emergency as soon as the circumstances allow it “According to California Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who introduced a bill to dissolve the emergency,
Legal affairs secretary Ann Patterson said rescinding California’s declaration of emergency would “cripple” its efforts to contain the pandemic.
Patterson also stated that the state health and safety law was used to establish all state mask and vaccine mandates, including those for students and healthcare professionals. There will be no end to those mandates unless they are revoked by the state’s health officer.
California will continue to substantially ignore licencing requirements for healthcare institutions and personnel, as well as testing laboratories, in order to increase the state’s immunisation and testing capacity and allow pharmacists, technicians and EMS workers to practise to their full potential. Pharmacies and mobile vaccination clinics are permitted to give testing and vaccines.
Even though the Camp Fire devastated Paradise, Northern California, in 2018, Patterson emphasised that declared states of emergency remain in place for disasters struck years ago, including the Camp Fire. According to her, a state of emergency announced by Jerry Brown in 2015 due to tree disease in California’s woods is still in effect. She asserted that in times of crisis, the government has more leeway to repair the damage, decrease dangers, and allow communities to recover.
“Even if the ground stops trembling, the crisis hasn’t ended. When the fire is extinguished, the battle is not ended. When we’ve given rapid medical assistance and secured damaged bridges following an earthquake, it’s not even over “Patterson commented. “The aftermath of a calamity can last for years,” says the author.
During the pandemic, Patterson remarked that Newsom has used his emergency powers in a judicious manner. Only 30 of the 561 pandemic-related executive order provisions will remain in place by the end of the summer, according to the governor’s office, following Friday’s announcement.
Although Newsom’s emergency powers, including the authority to amend laws, reappropriate funds without legislative approval, and enter into no-bid contracts, will remain until the state of emergency ends, he will keep his extended emergency powers.
Newsom’s administration inked a $1 billion mask agreement with BYD, a Chinese electric car corporation that had been increasing its political footprint in California in recent years, in the opening months of the pandemic. Legislators from both parties expressed their displeasure at the contract’s lengthy secrecy.
At issue were county officials’ concerns about preferential treatment for a longstanding Newsom donor, as well as the governor’s decision to hire Blue Shield of California to handle the state’s distribution of COVID-19 immunizations last year.
Criticism has been levelled at firms that have donated millions to the governor or on behalf of the governor through behested payments, which they believe gives an impression of a pay-to-play system in Newsom administration contracts.
Legislation filed this week by Senate Republican leader Scott Wilk (Santa Clarita) would prevent a state agency from awarding no-bid contracts to corporations that had made a charitable donation on behalf of the governor in the year prior to the gift.
I am highly concerned about the increasing usage of big no-bid contracts,” Wilk stated in a statement.