Legislature Granted Stay of Prop. 140 Cuts

The California Supreme Court, granting an 11th-hour request by state lawmakers, on Friday temporarily blocked a provision of Proposition 140 that requires the Legislature to slash its operating expenses 38% by July 1.

With one dissent, the high court suspended implementation of a section of the voter-approved initiative that legislators said would force them to immediately close two key staff offices.

The measure’s most prominent provision, limiting the terms of state legislators and officeholders, was not affected.

The brief order was signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, with only Justice Marvin R. Baxter voting to deny the Legislature’s request for a stay. The suspension of the budgetary provision will remain in effect until the justices rule on an overall challenge by the lawmakers to the constitutionality of the initiative, or until further order of the court. A ruling on the measure is expected this fall.

The action came only three days after attorneys for the legislators filed their request with the court--and just one day before a little-enforced deadline for legislative approval of a new state budget.

The legislators contended that to meet the requirements of the initiative, they would have to eliminate the two respected nonpartisan staff offices that assist them in budget and fiscal matters--the legislative analyst and the auditor general. The combined annual budgets of the two offices total about $19 million. In previous months, more than 600 legislative employees were let go to meet the new constraints of the measure.

The court’s order would allow the Legislature to restore cuts already made. But officials in Sacramento said they expected the Legislature would fund only the two offices while the case is pending before the court.

Proposition 140, co-sponsored by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, was aimed at reducing what backers said was excessive concentrations of legislative power and excessive staffs and pensions.

The measure was passed by a 52% majority last November. The 38% cut in operating costs required by the initiative would mean a $70-million spending reduction. In addition, the initiative limited statewide officeholders and state senators to two terms of four years each and Assembly members to three terms of two years each. Another provision eliminated the legislative pension system.

The state officials defending the initiative in court, represented by the state attorney general’s office, did not oppose the Legislature’s request for a stay.

But attorneys for the sponsors of Proposition 140, who have been allowed to join in the defense of the measure, strongly objected. They denounced the request as a political ploy, designed to put pressure on the court during budget negotiations in Sacramento--and raised doubt about the sincerity of legislative threats to close the two key staff offices.

Joseph Remcho of San Francisco, attorney for the lawmakers, called Friday’s action “an extraordinarily important step towards returning the Legislature to its stature as a full, coequal partner in government.”

Remcho said the order would enable the Legislature to fund its operations at the level it chooses, pending further action by the court. It was certain, he said, that the offices of analyst and auditor would remain intact.

The attorney noted that the order was procedural in nature and did not represent a ruling on the legality of the budgetary provision. In a similarly important case three years ago, the court temporarily blocked implementation of Proposition 103, the insurance reform measure, before finally upholding the validity of most of the measure in a decision six months later.

Nonetheless, Remcho said he found Friday’s order an “encouraging” sign the legislators may ultimately succeed in their challenge of Proposition 140.

An attorney for sponsors of the measure, Jonathan M. Coupal of the Pacific Legal Foundation, expressed disappointment with Friday’s action. But he conceded that the justices at this point were in a “difficult position” in view of the Legislature’s threat to close the offices and the lack of opposition to the stay by the state defendants in the suit.

Coupal said the order effectively gave the Legislature “a blank check” for operational spending for the next budget year. “The taxpayers are going to lose and lose big,” he said. However, the attorney said he was confident that the measure ultimately will be upheld. “When the court addresses this case on the merits it will see through all this smoke and mirrors and respond accordingly,” he said.

In Sacramento, Senate leader David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) said he was “extremely pleased” with the action. Earlier in the day, Roberti told reporters that in attempting to meet the requirements of Proposition 140, the Senate had “exhausted all our cuts” before deciding to lay off the nonpartisan employees of the analyst’s and auditor’s offices, if need be.

He contended that legislative staff members who remain in policy-making assignments--many of them political appointees--are vital to implementing “the promises we made” in winning election to the Legislature. Staff reductions made already through layoffs and early retirements went “well beyond any manner of reason,” he said.

In anticipation that the court might grant the stay, leaders of both the Senate and Assembly fashioned an $18-million contingency bill that would fully finance both the analyst’s and auditor’s offices for a full year. An aide to Roberti said that if the court later rules against the Legislature and upholds the initiative, any remaining balance of the special appropriation would not be spent.

Bob Forsyth, spokesman for Roberti, said 200 of the Senate’s 970 employees already have left--either with severance pay or “golden handshake” pension benefits. Another 150 were leaving Friday, because the earlier departures did not bring the Senate to the level mandated under Proposition 140.

Even though Friday’s court order temporarily blocked the budget provision, “We are choosing to apply the stay only to (the auditor general and the legislative analyst),” Forsyth said.

Bob Connelly, chief administrative officer of the Assembly Rules Committee, said 445 Assembly employees have departed, bringing the Assembly to the level required under the initiative.

Both Connelly and Forsyth said no rehiring or new hiring will be done as a result of the action Friday.

Auditor General Kurt R. Sjoberg was meeting with more than 100 members of his staff Friday, planning the office closure, when word of the court’s action came. “I was in the middle of the meeting when a staffer came in with a fax copy of news of the stay,” said Sjoberg. “I told it to everybody and there was just absolute joy in River City--people were just jumping around.”

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown Jr. (D-San Francisco) welcomed the court’s order, saying it achieved the purpose of saving the offices of the auditor and analyst.

The Assembly’s Republican leader, Ross Johnson of Fullerton, said he was surprised by the action. “Clearly, the Legislature didn’t have to decide to shut down the legislative analyst or the auditor general; they had a lot of other options available to them,” he said.

In February, a suit backed by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers was filed in the high court challenging the constitutionality of the measure. The suit contended the initiative severely impaired the Legislature’s ability to function as a separate branch of government. The lawmakers argued among other things that the changes mandated by the measure amounted to a “revision,” rather than an “amendment,” to the state Constitution. A revision may be made through the Legislature or a constitutional convention, but not by initiative.

The justices agreed in March to review the case but have not yet set a date to hear argument. The court’s next regular calendar will be held in September--and attorneys on both sides expect the case to be heard then.

Times staff writers Carl Ingram, Richard Paddock and William Trombley contributed to this story from Sacramento.