Proposition With Most Votes Would Nullify Rival One : Elections: The state Supreme Court ruling permits exceptions when conflicts are minor. It may affect seven measures on Tuesday’s ballot.

In a far-reaching ruling that could affect several initiatives on Tuesday’s election ballot, the state Supreme Court said Thursday that when voters approve fundamentally conflicting measures, no part of the one receiving fewer votes may take effect.

The ruling set important new guidelines that could resolve conflicts arising from the growing trend of competing ballot measures. The state Constitution says that when provisions of voter-approved initiatives conflict, those of the measure receiving the higher vote take precedence. But left unresolved was whether any parts of a measure with fewer votes could be salvaged as reconcilable with a measure with more votes.

The justices held that when two such initiatives were presented to voters as “all-or-nothing” alternatives--or create a “comprehensive regulatory scheme” on the same subject--only the provisions of the measure that won more votes can be enforced.

The decision could affect as many as seven initiatives on Tuesday’s ballot that could be considered in overall conflict, meaning that any of the measures passed with fewer votes would be invalidated.

But the court also said that two conflicting propositions could survive if the conflicts were only “minor.” The measure with fewer votes would take effect without the conflicting provision.

Some legal experts said the ruling leaves it unclear what would happen if voters approve propositions that clash on one significant issue, but also contain major provisions that are not in conflict.

For example, Propositions 131 and 140 on Tuesday’s ballot conflict because they would impose different term limits for office holders. But Proposition 131 also calls for public campaign financing while Proposition 140 would limit the Legislature’s operating budget and eliminate its retirement system.

Thursday’s action came in a 5-2 decision in which the court struck down voter-approved limits on legislative campaign contributions and a ban on off-year fund raising.

The court invalidated the remaining portions of Proposition 68, a campaign finance initiative passed in the June, 1988, election with 53% of the vote. Because a rival measure, Proposition 73, won 58% of the vote, only its provisions could be enforced, the court said.

In the meantime, the contribution limits of Proposition 73 have been declared unconstitutional by a federal district judge.

When the Supreme Court decision becomes final in 30 days, California will be left without any limits on campaign contributions--even though voters passed two such measures two years ago.

“Today’s action by the state Supreme Court, combined with the earlier decision striking down Proposition 73’s contribution limits, returns California politics to the law of the jungle,” said Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp.

Van de Kamp, the leading sponsor of Proposition 131, urged voters to approve that measure, which would reinstate Proposition 68’s provisions enacting contribution limits and public financing of campaigns.

The state high court, in a majority opinion by Justice David N. Eagleson, refused to try to salvage parts of Proposition 68 that might still be reconciled with Proposition 73, the measure that received more votes.

“Were the court to do so, the result might be a regulatory scheme created without any basis for ascertaining whether the electorate understood or intended the result,” Eagleson wrote.

Dissenters Justice Joyce L. Kennard and Justice Allen E. Broussard criticized the majority for its “all-or-nothing” approach to the issue. In order to uphold the will of the voters, the court should examine the two measures, provision by provision, and reconcile them “to the greatest possible extent,” Kennard wrote.

A variety of propositions on Tuesday’s ballot have conflicting sections, but some also contain language making it clear what provisions would remain in intact.

For example, Proposition 126, an industry-sponsored measure that would impose a moderate increase on alcohol taxes, specifically seeks to wipe out Proposition 134, which would raise alcohol taxes by a larger amount.

And both initiatives affecting the state’s logging practices--the environmentalist-backed Proposition 130 and the timber industry-sponsored Proposition 138--say each would cancel out the other if it got more votes.

Two sections of Proposition 128, the sweeping environmental measure called “Big Green” by supporters, also are targeted by other initiatives.

If Proposition 138 receives more votes, it would invalidate Proposition 128’s redwood preservation provisions. And Proposition 135, a pesticide regulation initiative sponsored by farmers, would negate the pesticide provisions of Big Green. But both of the counter-initiatives specifically state that they would not invalidate the remainder of Proposition 128.

Van de Kamp and other backers of Proposition 131 contend that most of their measure would take effect even if Proposition 140, with its conflicting term limits for elected officials, receives more votes.

“The two initiatives conflict on only one point, and they have not been promoted to voters as all-or-nothing, alternative regulatory schemes,” Van de Kamp told reporters.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, the sponsor of Proposition 140, said the decision striking down Proposition 68 was “all the more reason for one or both of these (propositions) to be approved.”

Both Propositions 68 and 73 sought to impose broad changes in campaign fund raising--setting limits on contributions, barring transfers of funds among candidates and restricting honorariums and gifts.

Proposition 68, applying only to state legislative candidates, was backed by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and Van de Kamp. Proposition 73, covering all candidates for state and local office, was sponsored by state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier)--who subsequently resigned and is serving a 6 1/2-year prison term on federal corruption charges--Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-Fullerton).

Under the state Constitution, any conflicts in voter-approved initiatives are resolved in favor of the one that draws more votes. In this instance, some provisions were in clear conflict: Proposition 68, for example, allowed voluntary public funding for campaigns--but Proposition 73 barred it. But backers of Proposition 68 contended that there were other parts of the measure that did not conflict with its rival and thus could take effect.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission ruled that overall, the two measures were substantially conflicting and declared that only Proposition 73 could take effect.

But in August, 1989, a state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles compared the measures provision-by-provision and said that Proposition 68 contained some features that were “not in irreconcilable conflict” with Proposition 73 and could survive.

Meanwhile, in a separate case, U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of Sacramento last September struck down the contribution limits and other portions of Proposition 73 as a violation of free speech rights. The ruling opened the way for local and statewide office-seekers--such as gubernatorial candidates Pete Wilson and Dianne Feinstein--to receive unlimited amounts of money in the campaign. But the judge reinstated the limits on contributions to legislative races while the ruling was appealed.

In Thursday’s ruling, the high court refused to engage in what it called “judicial legislation” by trying to salvage parts of Proposition 68. There was no way to prove that because the voters approved both, they wanted both to take effect to the maximum extent possible, Eagleson wrote.

The court said that its ruling would not apply when “one or more minor provisions” of an initiative conflict with a measure that gets more votes.

Eagleson’s 40-page majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, Justice Edward A. Panelli and Appellate Justice Arleigh Woods, sitting temporarily by assignment. Justice Stanley Mosk concurred in the ruling striking down Proposition 68’s provisions and warned that piecing together parts of two rival measures could create a “Frankenstein’s monster whose existence the voters never contemplated.”

Hager reported from San Francisco and Paddock from Sacramento.