Bill Lockyer

California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer recently announced his retirement after 46 years in politics. He joins us from Sacramento to discuss his decision to retire and his lengthy career in public service, which has included terms as California’s attorney general and head of the State Senate.

Bill Lockyer, treasurer of the State of California

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Back in the 80’s when we lived in Dublin, Mr Lockyer was our Assemblyman and as homeschoolers we were honoured to volunteer in his campaign office along with our son.

    Being hands on involved in the campaign was one of the best classrooms our son could have ever been in.

    We moved up here near Angels Camp years ago but have never ever lost respect for Mr Lockyer.

  • Torremolinos

    Proof that the USA is not completely insane (yet). Genetic patents ruled illegal. I expect Science Friday will cover this tomorrow.

  • Skip Conrad

    As AG, would you have stepped up to defend the State Constitution before the Supreme Court, specifically regarding section 7.5 which states “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in the State of California”? Or (as AG hypothetically) would you have shirked your sacred oath like Kamala Harris and Jerry Brown, left it to a 3rd party to stand up for the stated will of the people of California

    • jurgispilis

      I think its because of the supremacy clause. The gov’nr & AG take an oath to defend the state constitution, but that is superceeded by their oath to the federal constitution. And the federal constitution says nothing about marriage, except for DOMA. So I guess defending Prop 8/State constitution in court would comply with DOMA (federal law).

      I guess this would be analogous to Gov George Wallace blocking entrance to a state university of persons barred from attending by state law, yet permitted to attend under federal law.

  • jurgispilis

    For Bill Lockyer, I would appreciated your comments regarding the legacy of Prop 187,

    … a measure which was overwhelming passed by the California voters and was overturned by a lower court, and whose refusal to be defended by then Gov. Grey Davis, proved to be the major factor that led to his recall. This apparently set an unfortunate precedent, as evidenced by Jerry Brown’s similar (illegal) refusal to defend Prop 8.

    If Prop 187 were to be presented to the voter today, would it pass? (in your humble opinion)

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor