Van de Kamp Cites Ancient English Law in Lungren Case

Citing a medieval English doctrine, Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp declared Thursday that Rep. Daniel E. Lungren “has no legal standing to sue anyone” to become state treasurer as long as he declines to resign from Congress.

Van de Kamp said he will intervene in the legal squabble and suggest to the California Supreme Court that it reject Gov. George Deukmejian’s request to take immediate jurisdiction of Lungren’s case and, instead, refer the matter to a Superior Court.

If the Supreme Court were to follow this course, it could delay for several months--conceivably even until the next treasurer election in 1990--a resolution of both the legal question concerning Lungren’s right to take office and the political struggle over who succeeds the late Jesse M. Unruh as treasurer.

So Van de Kamp also said he realizes that “this is a unique case which deserves a speedy and fair resolution.” And although the slower lower court route is “preferable,” he said, “I’m not going to be troubled greatly” if the high panel does take immediate jurisdiction and rules relatively soon.

At a press conference, Van de Kamp--a potential Democratic rival of Deukmejian in the 1990 gubernatorial election--took a gentle poke at the Republican governor for publicly displaying his “frustration” at Lungren’s rejection by the state Senate. Speaking in a calm, reassuring voice in front of two flags and a wall full of law books, the attorney general asserted that he will treat the matter as “an issue of law, not of politics.”

In the attorney general’s office, he vowed, “this will be handled in the right way.”

As for Deukmejian’s charge Wednesday that Van de Kamp last fall succumbed to “heavy lobbying” by Democratic legislators and reversed a preliminary, informal attorney general’s opinion that originally had sided with the governor on the legal issue, he said simply: “The governor is mistaken. This was not a case, I must tell you, because I know where there was intense lobbying. . . . There was very little of that.”

Lungren on Wednesday filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court in San Francisco seeking “a prompt resolution” of the issue. At the same time, the Long Beach Republican announced that he will not resign from Congress and be sworn in as treasurer because, until his legal case is resolved, there could be a legal cloud over the state’s ability to sell bonds while he headed the office. Lungren, however, has said he will not run for reelection this year.

Different Viewpoint

Van de Kamp disagreed with the “legal cloud” argument, asserting that the treasurer’s office still would have authority to market bonds even if Lungren did take office before the case was resolved.

The legal gridlock occurred on Feb. 25 when the state Senate rejected the governor’s nomination of Lungren and the Assembly approved it. Deukmejian and Lungren maintain that both legislative houses must reject a nominee in order to deny confirmation. Van de Kamp and the Legislature’s chief lawyer, Bion Gregory, contend that confirmation requires the approval of both houses.

On Thursday, Van de Kamp said that if Lungren really desires a speedy decision, he “should resign his seat in Congress, which is a prerequisite under the (California) Constitution for holding state office, and formally assert his right to the treasurer’s office. . . .

“Until he does, however, Mr. Lungren has no legal standing to sue anyone. . . . As an officer of the court, I am duty-bound to call that to the court’s attention.”

Van de Kamp added, “Obviously he wants to have the security of the congressional position and that’s humanly understandable.”

Doctrine Cited

To support his case that Lungren should resign from Congress before suing to become treasurer, the attorney general cited, at length, a legal doctrine that English monarchs first began using in the 13th Century. Called quo warranto, which in Latin means “by what authority,” the doctrine has led to a modern-day California statute that establishes legal procedures for resolving disputes regarding the right to hold office.

One of Lungren’s attorneys, James R. Parrinello, later asserted that the congressman’s suit is based on “strong legal grounds and strong common sense grounds.”

“I can’t believe that the attorney general would take that position on a matter that is so important,” he said. “It just seems an irresponsible way to proceed. It’s form over substance.”

In a telephone interview Thursday from his Washington office, Lungren said he has made plans to move his family to Sacramento by mid-June in anticipation of a swift and favorable court ruling. In the event the court decides against him, Lungren said, he will remain in the state capital where he intends to be “very active in public policy.”

He said he also would seriously consider running for the treasurer’s office.

Congressional Record

“Those folks who kept saying I couldn’t be elected statewide on one hand seem to want to make sure I’m not given that opportunity,” Lungren said. “They felt they were in a position to judge my record (in Congress). I feel I am capable of discussing their records” in a campaign.

Deukmejian earlier said he would be delighted to offer Lungren a job in his Administration at any time. But Lungren said he also would consider “practicing law, doing some writing or doing television work.”

Lungren also confirmed that a legal defense fund will be established by the law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Hodgson, Parrinello & Mueller, which will represent him in court. But he said there are no firm plans on how the money will be solicited.