Republish
Skipping over appeals court ruling
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
Skipping over appeals court ruling
Share this:
By Betty T. Yee,
Alemeda
Betty T. Yee is the California State Controller.
Re “What’s the end game for state budget?”; Commentary, Dan Walters, June 18, 2020
While I appreciate Dan Walters’ attempt to share some history of California budget squabbles leading up to passage of Proposition 25 of 2010, I am disappointed his reporting skips over facts that do not fit his desired narrative.
In leaping nine years from then-Controller John Chiang’s dispute with legislators to the June 15 budget vote, Walters failed to mention California’s Third District Court of Appeal ruled against Controller Chiang’s interpretation of Prop. 25 in Steinberg v. Chiang (223 Cal. App. 4th 338; 2014). In that ruling, the court established that the State Controller may only withhold pay from legislators if they fail to act on the proposed budget by the June 15 constitutional deadline and that the Controller does not have authority to determine whether a state budget is balanced or to audit the accuracy of legislative estimates of future revenues.
I continue to work with leaders from the legislative and executive branches toward a pragmatic budget solution, respecting and implementing the law as interpreted by the judicial branch.