The two-day-a-month unpaid furloughs of state executive branch workers ordered in 2008 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger legally applied to employees of California's elected constitutional officers, an appellate court in Sacramento ruled Tuesday.

Applying the furlough order to the staffs of constitutional officers "does not violate the California Constitution's system of divided executive authority or impermissibly interfere with (the officers') statutory right to control the staffing and management of their respective offices," a three-justice panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal declared in a 47-page opinion.

Schwarzenegger resorted to furloughs as a cost-saving device in the face of an overwhelming budget deficit.

State Controller John Chiang refused to apply the furlough order to about 16,000 workers in government branches headed by officials elected by statewide vote.

The controller, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction and members of the Board of Equalization appealed a 2009 mandate by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette that Chiang comply with the governor's order.

Tuesday's opinion will not have an immediate impact on the workers, who were never furloughed, according to Department of Personnel Administration spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley.

"This just clarifies their status," she said .

The California Supreme Court last year held that Schwarzenegger's action was valid because it was ratified by the Legislature. But the high court left open the question of whether its decision extended to employees of elected constitutional officers.

Chiang argued that the governor's order did not specifically direct furloughs of those employees.

But the Court of Appeal's justices pointed out that the order's language includes "represented state employees and supervisors" and "all state managers, including exempt state employees, regardless of funding source."

Approximately 11,096 of the officers' employees were at the time "represented by employee organizations," the justices noted. "Accordingly, these … are 'represented state employees' within the meaning of the furlough order," the justices reasoned.

In response to another Chiang argument, they also cited a 1945 law that charged the governor with supervising the officers' conduct and a 1966 amendment to the California Constitution allowing the governor to require information from the officers relating to their duties.

Tuesday's published opinion was written by Associate Justice Ronald B. Robie. Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye and Associate Justice George Nicholson concurred.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call The Bee's Denny Walsh, (916) 321-1189. Staff writer Jon Ortiz contributed to this report.

• Read more articles by Denny Walsh