Term-Limit Measure Leads by Big Margin : Initiatives: Victory looms for Prop. 140; Prop. 131 loses; ‘Nickel-a-drink’ alcohol tax hike defeated.

In a strong display of dissatisfaction with elected officials, taxes and government spending, voters appeared to be slapping term limits on state officeholders and rejecting most tax increases and bond measures on Tuesday’s ballot.

In a direct rebuke of politicians, voters were going for Proposition 140, a measure intended to sweep out most state officials in eight years and a majority of the state Legislature in just six.

Approval of the measure, the more severe of two on the ballot to limit terms, would place California along side Oklahoma and Colorado in a growing national movement to limit the terms of lawmakers.

The milder term-limit measure, Proposition 131, lost badly. That initiative, which would have limited legislators to 12 years and other state elected officials to eight, also included a far-reaching, tax-supported system for funding political campaigns.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, a chief backer of Proposition 140, predicted that the initiative would have a national impact. “This is an election landslide that changes the face of politics,” he said. The measure will eventually change the makeup of the Legislature, he said, adding that “we’ll get a body of people elected with substantial integrity and intellectual presence who can grapple with and settle” the significant issues facing the state.

An angry Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) complained that he never would have risen to a leadership position if the term limits in Proposition 140 had been in place in earlier years. He accused its proponents of racism. “There is no way Willie Brown would have been elected Speaker after two years,” the veteran black lawmaker said.

Voters also acted decisively in rejecting Proposition 134, the so-called “nickel-a-drink” tax increase on alcoholic beverages. In a barrage of advertising, the liquor industry fought bitterly to defeat the measure and to win support for a counter-measure of its own, Proposition 126. .

Though that measure lost, liquor industry officials were jubilant and praised voters for rejecting any tax increase on their products. Said Thomas A. Aldrich, vice president of Anheuser Busch, which sells half the beer sold in California, “We feel like the public has spoken wisely about both the tax measures . . . I lifted a Budweiser as a toast. It tasted very, very good.”

Still undecided late Tuesday was the final result on Proposition 136, the liquor industry-supported measure that was dubbed a “poison pill” or a “ballot virus” by opponents because it would nullify the nickel-a-drink tax increase, as well as other tax hikes on the ballot.

“The people of California are saying they like the tax revolt and are keeping it going,”declared Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., one of the sponsors of the measure.

One sign of that continuing revolt, was the defeat of Proposition 133, an anti-drug measure that would have raised the state sales tax by one-half cent for four years to finance a major crackdown and education effort on drug abuse and crime. Another such indication was the defeat of Proposition 129, which also sought new revenues to battle crime.

The sponsor of Proposition 133, Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, said he was afraid that his measure was losing because of fears of a recession. “Most money and tax issues are in for very tough sledding,” he said.

After years of almost automatic approval of bond measures, voters appeared to be saying no to most of the nearly $6-billion package of bond proposals on the ballot.

The only bond measure that appeared to be winning convincingly was Proposition 142, a $400-million measure to finance home mortgages for veterans.

Proposition 146, an $800-million measure to provide money for public school construction, was narrowly ahead, but other measures that would provide billions for construction of prisons, university buildings, jails, courthouses, parks and other public works projects appeared to be on their way to defeat.

If the vote trend holds up, it would mark the first time in modern history that bond measures were rejected in such a wholesale fashion.

One measure voters did approve was Proposition 139, which puts prison inmates to work in private industry for the first time.

The list of ballot measures was lengthy, but not the longest in state history. In fact, the total of 28 propositions was one less than two years ago. What prompted groans from voters was the confusion of picking through the many competing propositions, one clashing with the next or seeming to cancel the other out.

Proponents of the two term-limit measures were asking Californians to show their dissatisfaction with politicians, in effect, sending pink slips to state elected officials. Proposition 140 was designed to sweep out virtually all state officeholders by 1998, limiting Assembly members to six years in office, and state senators and most other state elected officials to eight years. The measure also was intended to slash the Legislature’s budget by as much as 48% and jettison the legislators’ retirement system, requiring all lawmakers to enroll in Social Security instead.

Backed by California Common Cause, Voter Revolt and other groups, Proposition 131 also included limits on terms, but less severe than those in the rival measure--eight years for state officeholders and 12 years for legislators. The initiative was also an attempt to rewrite the system for financing political campaigns by imposing limits on campaign contributions and creating a taxpayer supported fund for partial public funding of campaigns.

When recent state and federal court decisions struck down virtually all of the campaign contribution limits approved by voters two years ago, supporters of Proposition 131 argued that their measure was necessary if there was to be any restraint on escalating campaign spending.

Opponents of both term-limit measures argued that the initiatives would not have the desired effect, but would make state politicians even more dependent on special interests; for the money needed to gain office and for information on important issues.

Few issues were as confusing as the battle over Proposition 134, the “nickel-a-drink” alcoholic beverage tax. Proponents, including public interest, public health and law enforcement organizations, said that the added $760 million a year in revenue was needed to counter the high public cost of alcohol-related problems. The alcohol beverage industry countered by spending $28 million to defeat Proposition 134 and to pass a smaller tax increase included in Proposition 126, which was placed on the ballot by the Legislature at the liquor industry’s urging.

Alcohol industry money also was used to support the “poison pill” measure, Proposition 136, aimed at making it tougher to pass any special tax by requiring a two-thirds vote of the state electorate and limiting such tax increases to 1%. Opponents of the measure complained that its “ballot virus” provision sought to cancel out the nickel-a-drink tax hike and other fee and tax increases on Tuesday’s ballot.

The intent of the companion measure, Proposition 137, was to make it more difficult to alter the initiative process, by requiring a statewide election to revise the laws that govern initiatives and referendums.

Propositions 133 and 129 were drafted to take different routes to achieving similar aims: providing more ammunition for the war against drugs. Backed by Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, Proposition 133 included a half-cent sales tax increase to last four years and a prohibition against the early release of those convicted twice of drug offenses, murder, manslaughter or rape.

Proposition 129 sought to rely on a drug enforcement superfund and included $740 million in bonds to build jails and prisons needed to house an expected increase in convicted drug offenders. The measure also tried to clarify a controversial provision of Proposition 115, the criminal justice initiative approved last June. Supporters argued that the earlier initiative may have limited the state constitutional guarantee of privacy and that a change was needed to preserve a woman’s right to an abortion.

HOW KEY PROPOSITIONS FARED

Edition-time status of key statewide propositions:

136: State Local Taxation-- Trailing

ALCOHOL

126: Alcohol Taxes-- Failed

134: Alcohol Surtax “Nickel a Drink”-- Failed

ENVIRONMENT

128: Big Green/Hayden Environmental Initiative-- Failed

135: Pesticide Regulation-- Failed

130: Forest Aquisition “Forest Forever”-- Trailing

138: Timber Haresting-- Failed

132: Marine Resources-- Leading

TERM LIMITS

131: Term Limits, Campaign Financing-- Failed

140: Terms of Office, Legislators Retirement-- Leading

CRIME

129: Crime Reduction and Drug Control-- Failed

133: Drug Enforcement and Prevention--Failed

KEY TO CHART

When two fundamentally conflicting propositions pass, the one with more votes takes effect. However, if the differences are minor, other provisions of the measure with the fewer votes may be implemented.

Examples:

136: Contains a “ballot virus” that could nullify propositions: 134, 133, and 129.

126 and 134: Whichever passes, the one with most votes will likely cancel the other out.

128 and 130: Conflict with 135 and 138

129 and 133: Both could go into effect with no conflict.

131 and 140: Conflict.