Justices to Begin Deliberations on Term Limits Under Prop. 140 : Government: If it upholds the measure, the court could alter the makeup of the Legislature and affect campaigns in other states.

With the future makeup of the Legislature at stake, the California Supreme Court today will begin to weigh the fate of Proposition 140, the far-reaching term limitation initiative approved by the voters last fall.

The justices will hear 90 minutes of arguments over the measure and are expected to issue a decision within 90 days. A ruling upholding the initiative would clear the way for a dramatic shift in California’s political process--and lend new momentum to other campaigns throughout the country for term restrictions.

The case marks the first major court test of the constitutionality of legislative term limits--a hot new political issue that resulted in the adoption of citizen-initiated reforms in three other states last year.

Similar measures could be on the ballot in about 20 states in 1992, backed by groups ranging from Minnesota’s Committee Opposed to Permanent Politicians to New York’s Throw the Rascals Out Committee.

“This is a bellwether case,” said Donald B. Verrilli, a Washington lawyer representing the National Conference of State Legislatures, one of the groups opposing Proposition 140. “Whatever the California Supreme Court rules is going to have a major bearing on other states.”

Backers of the measure say a court victory in this state would discourage legal challenges elsewhere--and provide additional support to what they see as growing popular sentiment for term restrictions in other states.

“People have become increasingly frustrated with their inability to control government--and so often legislators, rather than being the problem solvers, have become the problem,” said John C. Scully of the Washington Legal Foundation, which represents several supporters of the initiative. “Now people see term limits as a solution, and that’s the reason it’s sweeping the country.”

Proposition 140, co-sponsored by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Peter F. Schabarum, took aim at what critics see as an excessive concentration of power in “career politicians” and their expensive staffs and generous pensions.

The measure, passed by 52% of the voters, limits statewide office holders and state senators to two four-year terms. State Assembly members could serve three terms of two years each.

Another provision mandated a 38% reduction in the operating budget of the Legislature, representing a $70-million cut. The high court has temporarily blocked that part of the measure pending its decision on the proposition’s constitutionality.

A final component abolished the legislators’ pension system, while allowing them to retain previously earned benefits.

Democratic and Republican state lawmakers, using private funds, brought suit challenging the initiative, contending that it violated the state and federal constitutions.

The challengers, represented by San Francisco attorney Joseph Remcho, say the initiative is so drastic it represents a “revision” of the state Constitution that may be achieved only through the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

Further, by effectively limiting the voters’ choices, the measure infringes on the constitutional right to vote and to free association, the suit charges.

Finally, the lawmakers contend, the elimination of future retirement benefits interferes with the right of contract, violating the federal Constitution.

The defense of Proposition 140 will be made today by state Deputy Atty. Gen. Manuel M. Medeiros, representing the state defendants in the suit, and Jonathan M. Coupal of the Pacific Legal Foundation, appearing for the measure’s sponsors.

Both defenders deny that the initiative represents an unauthorized revision of the Constitution. State attorneys say its changes are no more sweeping and dramatic than previous, long-established amendments that gave voters the power of initiative or directed the governor to prepare and submit a budget for state government.

The sponsors reject the notion that the measure violates the right to vote; the limits on incumbency, they say, actually will make elections more competitive and widen the choices available to voters.

However, there is a sharp split between the state and the sponsors over a key remaining question about the initiative that was not specifically answered in its language: whether it imposes a lifetime ban on incumbents who have served the alloted terms or merely limits the number of successive terms incumbents may serve.

The sponsors’ attorneys say the ban extends for life, but Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, in a brief filed earlier in the case, says the limit is only on successive terms.

The foes of Proposition 140 are receiving support from the National Conference of State Legislatures, which, in a friend of the court brief, argues that the measure will end up making less experienced legislators more beholden to special interests.

Verrilli, attorney for the group, says the measure jeopardizes the right of Californians to full participation in the democratic process--a constitutional issue he contends could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.