Senate Narrowly Rejects Lungren : Treasurer Nominee Is Backed by Assembly; Court Test a Possibility

In a staggering defeat for Gov. George Deukmejian, the state Senate on Thursday narrowly rejected his nomination of Rep. Daniel E. Lungren as California treasurer even as the Assembly was voting to confirm the Long Beach Republican.

Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, pronounced the nomination dead. But Deukmejian and Lungren still faced a tough decision about whether the congressman should be sworn in anyway, thereby forcing a state Supreme Court ruling on the legal requirements for confirmation.

Deukmejian for weeks has insisted that confirmation would require only the majority vote of one house. But Democratic Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and the Legislature’s lawyer have disagreed, asserting that confirmation of both houses would be necessary.

Question of Pressing Ahead

Complicating the decision of Deukmejian and Lungren about whether to press the issue in court was Lungren’s desire to run for reelection to the House of Representatives this year if he cannot become treasurer. He has until March 11 to file for reelection. Also, there could be a serious question about the validity of any state bonds sold by Lungren as treasurer until his legal status was resolved.

Deukmejian and Lungren were purposely vague about their future actions. In a prepared statement issued by the governor’s office following the legislative votes, Lungren made it clear that he feels he has the legal right to take office if he wants to.

“I’m delighted with this new opportunity to serve my state,” he said. Deukmejian said he will consult with Lungren and his lawyer “in the coming days . . . to determine the most appropriate way to resolve the legal questions.”

Although the constitutional deadline for confirming Lungren is not until Monday, Administration forces appeared by late Thursday to have exhausted all their parliamentary options in the Legislature.

Lungren fell two votes short in the Senate after nearly four hours of intense debate during which opponents touched on everything from Lungren’s conservative voting record in Congress, to his father’s service as former President Richard M. Nixon’s doctor, to the U.S. Senate’s rejection of Robert Bork as a Supreme Court justice and Deukmejian’s aloof relationship with the Legislature. The final vote was 19 to 21.

Assembly Vote

The Assembly, which spent more time in private party caucuses than in actual debate, voted 43 to 32, giving Lungren two more votes than he actually needed.

The votes in both houses were cast pretty much along party lines, with four Democrats in the Senate and seven in the Assembly joining the Republicans who voted unanimously for the GOP governor’s nominee.

The defeat in the Senate reflected, in large part, the Legislature’s deep resentment of Deukmejian for not nominating one of its own after Democratic Treasurer Jesse M. Unruh died in August. Several Republican senators had asked for the job, including GOP leader Ken Maddy of Fresno who was the runner-up for the post. Other senators in the running were Marian Bergeson of Newport Beach, Robert G. Beverly of Manhattan Beach and William Campbell of Hacienda Heights.

“I could walk five steps and touch three or four or five Republicans who would not have had a single vote against them,” veteran Democratic Sen. Ralph C. Dills of Gardena said during the debate. Turning to GOP members, he added: “Is he (Deukmejian) saying to all of you that you aren’t persons who can be depended upon to carry out the duties of the office? . . . He provoked the confrontation. He expected it, and he got it.”

During the long confirmation process, which began with Deukmejian’s nomination of Lungren shortly before Thanksgiving, liberal Democrats clearly were inspired by the U.S. Senate’s rejection last year of President Reagan’s nomination of Bork. And this attitude--that if the U.S. Senate could do it, so could the state Senate--surfaced several times during Thursday’s debate.

Referring to Reagan’s ultimate, successful nomination of Sacramento appellate justice Anthony M. Kennedy to the Supreme Court, Senate Democratic Floor Leader Barry Keene of Benicia said:

“When we ask (Deukmejian) for someone of the caliber of Tony Kennedy and he gives us someone of the caliber of Robert Bork, we’re supposed to roll over or we’re too partisan! Well, governor, that’s not what the (state) Constitution provides. It gives us not just power, but the duty to evaluate your nominee.”

Democrats contended--as did several Republicans privately--that Deukmejian should have consulted legislative leaders last fall in a serious effort to choose a politically mainstream nominee who was acceptable to both parties. Several opponents during the debate branded Lungren an “ultraconservative, right-winger.”

“He made this appointment as if there was no advice and consent process at all,” charged Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles). “We’re asking the governor to try again in the spirit of cooperation. . . .

“Give us someone who is open to all points of view, and we will give you our votes.”

Some Republican legislators privately complained that Deukmejian showed weak leadership and stubbornness during the confirmation process by refusing to deal directly with Democrats who could have provided the votes Lungren needed in the Senate. Referring to the powers a governor has to enact bills, appoint judges and spend money, a GOP leader said: “Why have all these goodies and not use them? That’s what drives you up the wall.”

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) told the Sacramento Press Club on Thursday that Republicans--legislators as well as the governor--”clearly did not demonstrate a desire to leverage votes.”

An example pointed to by Deukmejian’s critics was his unwillingness to make peace with Sen. Rose Ann Vuich of Dinuba, a conservative Democrat whose ultimate decision to vote against Lungren generally was regarded as the key to his defeat. Two years ago, angry about the senator’s votes against his programs, Deukmejian campaigned against Vuich in her San Joaquin Valley district. Vuich let people know she still was smarting about that. But the governor, she said, never made an attempt to talk to her about the Lungren vote.

“I tried to find a reason to vote for him,” she told a reporter Thursday, but ultimately could not.

Even more surprising was that Deukmejian and Lungren lost the vote of San Francisco independent Quentin L. Kopp, who previously had announced he was on their side. Kopp said he had been bombarded by opposition letters and phones calls from Asian constituents who objected to Lungren’s congressional vote against $20,000 payments to Japanese-Americans sent to internment camps during World War II.

In a last-ditch effort to save Lungren’s nomination, GOP leader Maddy warned Democrats they might be touching off a “battle royal” with the governor.

“What sort of mischief do we bring on ourselves?” he asked rhetorically. “The Legislature can, when we want to, spite the governor. But why? Why should we sit around here the rest of the year going through that?”

Maddy and several Lungren proponents lauded him for his honesty, integrity, intelligence and articulation and his reputation as a good family man. But veteran Sen. Nicholas C. Petris (D-Oakland) said, “These aren’t the things that are at issue. Have our standards fallen so low that this is an issue? These things are a given. They should be the very minimum. The question is how does he use these resources” as state treasurer.

But one political issue that had been acknowledged by Democrats was whether they should create a rising political star who could be a combatant in statewide elections and perhaps even one day become a governor. Democrat Dills touched on that Thursday when he referred to the power of the treasurer to command campaign contributions from financial institutions and asked: “Why should we give a state treasurer three years incumbency to raise money to defeat all of us who didn’t vote for him.”

Unruh had built the generally ministerial office of treasurer into a powerful tool for raising campaign money, tapping the big bond houses who were largely at his mercy in obtaining millions of dollars in underwriting and legal contracts.

The legal battle over interpretation of a 1976 state constitutional amendment setting up the confirmation process of a statewide official basically is simple.

Amendment’s Provision

The key provision of the constitutional amendment states that the governor’s nominee “shall take office upon confirmation by a majority of the membership of the Senate and a majority of the membership of the Assembly. . . . In the event the nominee is neither confirmed nor refused confirmation by both the Senate and the Assembly . . . the nominee shall take office as if he or she had been confirmed by a majority of the Senate and Assembly.”

Democrats and the attorney general read that to mean a nominee must be confirmed by both houses. Deukmejian says one house is sufficient.

Thursday’s vote climaxed several weeks of high political drama that included a surprise plea to the Senate Rules Committee from Lungren’s wife Bobbi who proclaimed that her husband is “not a racist”--a rebuttal to critics who complained about his vote against the Japanese-American reparations.

The public opposition to Lungren in both houses focused on his congressional votes against a variety of other Democratic-favored measures, including clean water bills, money to support legal services for the poor and strong sanctions against South Africa.

The Senate Democrats who voted for Lungren were Ruben S. Ayala of Chino, Wadie P. Deddeh of Chula Vista, Joseph B. Montoya of Whittier and Robert Presley of Riverside.

In the Assembly, the Democrats voting for Lungren were Tom Bane of Tarzana, Steve Clute of Riverside, Jim Costa of Fresno, Dave Elder of Long Beach, Lucy Killea of San Diego, Jack O’Connell of Carpinteria and Norm Waters of Plymouth.

Contributing to this story were staff writers Jerry Gillam, Mark Gladstone, Carl Ingram, Richard C. Paddock and Douglas Shuit.