Politicians Asked for the Paddling They’ll Get : Legislature: Advocates for reform are betting that corruption and other charges are the ammunition they need to persuade the voters.

Safe as most members are in their individual districts, the California Legislature nevertheless faces a set of tough elections in 1990. Even when angry voters are unable to oust members whose tenures were made secure by the 1981-82 redistrictings, the electorate will have other ways of expressing displeasure with the Legislature. An unusual smorgasbord of legislative-reform measures seems destined for the 1990 ballot.

Lawmakers can be expected to try extra hard to be on their best behavior and to do all they can to avoid offending the public, but it’s probably too late. Nearly 20 years of freewheeling fund-raising practices have caught up with the Legislature, and its collective image is more tarnished than it’s been in decades.

One state senator already is on trial in Sacramento on federal charges of corruption. A breakthrough in the FBI’s long investigation of fund-raising practices of other lawmakers occurred recently when a key legislative staffer pleaded guilty to extorting $12,500 on behalf of her bosses. She is expected to cooperate with federal prosecutors looking into possible illegal campaign fund-raising by other lawmakers.

Still other problems beset individual legislators. The Lincoln Savings & Loan scandal, for example, has touched the California Legislature as well as the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

As these troubles continue to command newspaper headlines and television news time, the collective image of the Legislature inevitably will deteriorate further--just as campaigning starts seriously on the various reform measures. Their sponsors will have plenty of ammunition in arguing that change is necessary.

Several proposed ballot measures would limit the terms of lawmakers. At least one, an initiative by Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp as part of his campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, is likely to qualify for the June ballot.

Van de Kamp’s proposal outrages some of his fellow Democrats who occupy legislative leadership posts. They see him as trying to make political hay at their expense. This perception, of course, is quite accurate, although his proposal would apply to all elected state officials and not just to legislators. Van de Kamp’s initiative also would make officials subject to stricter ethical standards and limitations on outside income.

That makes for interesting speculation about how long a honeymoon Van de Kamp would enjoy with the Legislature if he were elected governor. The sweetness and light might not last through Inauguration Day.

Hardly less disturbing to lawmakers will be two competing initiatives to reform the redistricting process and prevent the kind of gerrymanders that have been enacted every 10 years by the Legislature’s majority-party members. Sponsors of one of these initiative proposals announced last week that they had gathered 965,000 signatures on qualifying petitions. They’re confident that this is more than enough to place the measure on the June ballot.

Just about the same number of signatures were obtained earlier for another measure that would go beyond redistricting by imposing various ethical reforms on lawmakers. This, says its chief sponsor, Marin County businessman Gary Flynn, should add to its voter appeal.

If forced to choose between one plan or another, state lawmakers probably would find the Flynn measure preferable to the rival proposal originated by San Mateo County Supervisor Tom Huening. Under the Flynn-sponsored measure, the Legislature still would have its finger in the redistricting pie. Flynn’s reforms would allow the Legislature, although acting under new constraints, to continue its redistricting responsibilities.

That’s the Flynn measure’s chief flaw. A requirement that redistricting be subject to a two-thirds approval of each legislative house might eliminate the kind of abuses that took place in the 1981-82 gerrymanders, yet not prevent “sweetheart deals” in which lawmakers of both parties reshape districts to provide all incumbents with maximum protection from voter wrath.

The Huening proposal recognizes the conflict of interest inherent in legislative action on reapportionment. That measure would accomplish greater reform by establishing a citizens commission to oversee the process.

Given all the adverse news about lawmakers recently and the prospects for even more, voter approval of some reforms seems inevitable. The best hope that the Legislature’s stand-pat elements have is that the least disruptive changes will pass.