Schwarzenegger

Mental Health Ass'n v. Schwarzenegger

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 180·190 Cal. App. 4th 952·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2071·2010 D.A.R. 18
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 9, 2010No. A125937California5,724 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pollak, J.

Several organizations dedicated to providing advocacy, education and support services in the field of mental health 1 and several individuals who have been recipients of assistance from the former Homeless Adults Program, appeal from the denial of their petition for a writ of mandate to compel the State of California 2 to reinstitute that program. Appellants contend that the removal from the state’s budget of funding for the Homeless Adults Program, which occurred as the result of a gubernatorial veto in 2007, violates the provisions of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which was approved by the voters as Proposition 63 on the November 2004 ballot. That measure imposed a new tax to fund the expansion of mental health services and added to the Welfare and Institutions Code 3 section 5891 which, as originally enacted, reads as follows: “The funding established pursuant to this act shall be utilized to expand mental health services. These funds shall not be used to supplant existing state or county funds utilized to provide mental health services. The state shall continue to provide financial support for mental health programs with not less than the same entitlements,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.