Court Rejects Lungren Bid in Setback to Deukmejian : Governor’s Own Judges Desert Him

In a sharp political setback for Gov. George Deukmejian, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that Rep. Daniel E. Lungren may not take office as state treasurer because he was confirmed by only one house of the Legislature.

The court, now led by a majority of Deukmejian appointees, held that a 1976 amendment to the state Constitution requires that nominees to vacant statewide offices gain approval by both the Senate and the Assembly.

Lungren, a 41-year-old Long Beach Republican congressman, had been named by the GOP governor to the vacancy created by the death of Jesse M. Unruh, a Democrat.

Justices Display Speed

In the bitter partisan battle that followed, Lungren won confirmation in the Assembly on a 43-32 vote but lost in the Senate 19 to 21. Backed by Deukmejian, Lungren took the issue to the court, contending approval by one house was sufficient. The justices acted with unusual speed in the case, rendering a decision only nine days after hearing arguments in what was viewed by some as a test of its political independence and neutrality.

Five of the seven justices were appointed by Deukmejian--three of them following a tumultuous election campaign in 1986 that resulted in the defeat of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and two other court members. The two others were named by Democratic governors.

Intent Called Clear

Today’s ruling came in a 27-page, unsigned opinion saying that, although there was some ambiguity in the language of the amendment, it was clearly intended to require confirmation by both houses. Only if the Legislature fails to vote on a nomination within 90 days could a nominee take office without such approval, the justices said.

“When, as here, one house votes to disapprove a nominee, the nomination is rejected, just as in other matters requiring legislative action. . . , “ the court said. “Only this construction is consistent with the voters’ intention in adopting the constitutional provision.”

The court rejected the contention by Lungren and Deukmejian that the amendment provided two alternative means of confirmation: (1) by approval of both houses or, (2) by the failure of both houses to reject within 90 days.

New Nomination Required

“To accept Lungren’s position would seriously degrade the power and dignity of one house of the Legislature in the confirmation process,” the justices said. “An express rejection of the nominee by that house would be rendered a nullity.”

As a result of the ruling, the governor now will be required to submit another nomination to the Legislature.

Lungren, currently serving his last term in Washington, issued a statement saying he believed he had a “fair opportunity” to present his case and would “fully respect” the court’s decision.

“I intend to serve out the remainder of my term with vigor and commitment and then join my family in the Sacramento area,” he said. “Although I have no firm plans for the future, I intend to remain involved in public life and hope to continue serving the people of my home state.”

Court’s Integrity Affirmed

James R. Parrinello of San Francisco, the attorney who represented Lungren before the justices, expressed disappointment with the decision but said it would refute suggestions the new court would unfairly favor the governor in politically sensitive cases.

“There was some speculation that the justices were not going to call this case as they saw it,” said Parrinello. “But they did call it exactly as they saw it. . . . We thought it was a close case and that our arguments had merit. We’re disappointed in the decision but we respect it.”