State Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Term Limit Measure : Prop. 140: Justices to consider lawsuit directly, indicating importance attached to the issue.

The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to hear a constitutional challenge by the Legislature to Proposition 140, the far-reaching term-limitation initiative passed by the voters last November.

The court, in a brief order signed by all seven justices, granted direct review of a lawsuit filed last month by the Legislature, a group of individual lawmakers from both major parties and other opponents of the measure.

The justices instructed attorneys to file written briefs by May 1 but set no date for oral argument. Lawyers said the matter could be heard as early as June, with a decision rendered within 90 days--or perhaps much sooner, in view of the importance of the case.

Both sides in the dispute welcomed the high court’s decision to hear the case directly, without waiting for a lower court to review the issues first. Under law, the justices may exercise direct jurisdiction on matters they regard as of “statewide importance.”

“We’re very pleased,” said Joseph Remcho, a San Francisco attorney representing the Legislature. “Win or lose, the case could be decided before the start of the next fiscal year, in July, when the budget reductions under the initiative would actually go into effect. This is very important and very encouraging.”

Jonathan M. Coupal of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the sponsors of Proposition 140, also hailed the high court’s prompt intervention in the case. “We’re confident Proposition 140 will be upheld,” he said. “Our belief is that, over time, the benefits from 140 will show up in a more effective and efficient government in California.”

The measure, co-sponsored by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, would limit statewide officeholders and state senators to two terms of four years each and Assembly members to three terms of two years each. Other restrictions under the initiative would mandate a 40% cutback in legislative operational costs and force about one-fourth of the Legislature’s 2,500-member staff to leave their posts.

The suit is being financed with campaign funds and private donations but not tax funds. It contends that the initiative “radically alters” the structure of California government, undermining the Legislature’s ability to perform as a separate branch. Without an adequate staff and sufficient operational funds, the suit said, the balance between the legislative and executive branches will be upset.

Among other things, the suit argues that the measure amounts to a “revision” of, rather than an amendment to, the state Constitution. Any such revision of the Constitution may be imposed only through the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Last December, the high court struck down a key part of Proposition 115, the criminal justice-reform initiative, on similar grounds.

The suit, as is customary in such disputes, named as defendants Secretary of State March Fong Eu, Controller Gray Davis and other officials legally obligated to enforce the measure.

In another order issued Wednesday, the justices granted sponsors of the measure the right to intervene in the case and join state officials in defense of the initiative.

Coupal said that although the officials had pledged a vigorous defense of the measure, it is important that the backers themselves also appear before the high court in its behalf.

The lawyer noted that Eu, Davis and state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren hold offices subject to the limits of Proposition 140. “All of these government agencies also have to go to the Legislature on budgetary matters,” Coupal said. “Even if they make a staunch defense of the initiative, it might give at least an appearance of a conflict of interest on their part.”