Get Ready for the Challenges to 140 : The voters have spoken but the courts haven’t

Although it did not pass by an overwhelming margin--the final tally was 52% to 48%--Proposition 140 won fairly and squarely. The measure provides for strict term limitations on most elected state officials. But now a major legal challenge to the constitutionality of the measure looms. Before the legal circus is over, many voters may feel that once again the voice of the people is being thwarted.

The analogy, in Los Angeles at least, is to the willful legal challenge of the Board of Supervisors to any attempts to re-draw supervisorial districts fairly. The legal costs have gone through the roof--more than $5 million to date--and the bills are being paid entirely with taxpayer money. And all this money is being spent for a purpose no more noble than self-interest: preservation of their seats.

Now in Sacramento a large legal challenge is being prepared, inspired in no small measure by a powerful and resourceful Speaker of the Assembly whose tenure ox has been gored by Proposition 140’s passage. The challenge was predictable; no one expected the incumbents to give up without a fight. But is it unwarranted? The answer is no--for several reasons.

1) No taxpayer money will be used. The costs of the legal challenge will be borne entirely by private funds, though including money from the bulging reelection campaign chests of legislators like Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

2) The legal issues likely to be raised are not inherently frivolous. The constitutionality of a lifetime ban to prevent a man or woman from serving in the office to which he or she was elected needs to be tested. It is a controversial concept.

3) Certain of the meaner provisions of Proposition 140--in effect erasing the pension-plan equity of some members--deserves review.

So a legal challenge is going to come. What’s important is that the courts give the litigation priority status so the matter is not prolonged. Although The Times did not endorse 140, preferring instead Proposition 131, the people of California have spoken and, having voted for term limits, may wish to return to the initiative drawing board if this measure is found unconstitutional.

The idea of term limits is very popular. In September, Oklahoma passed such limits. On Nov. 6, Colorado as well as California voters did the same. Many cities in Orange County--10 of 29, in fact--have slapped term limits on city council members.

It seems obvious that the idea is not likely to go away no matter how often it is challenged. There is a general sense that the political system needs a rather thorough shaking. It may be, in the end, that the courts will find no issue of serious merit with Proposition 140. Still, the matter is uncertain. According to some constitutional scholars, the U.S. Supreme Court takes the view that its voting rights decisions are sui generis and have little predictive value. This means that they must be adjudicated one by one.

It could be that the stage is set for a ruling on the constitutionality of aspects of term limits. That’s only fair.