Term Limits Upheld by State Supreme Court : Government: The 6-1 vote on Prop. 140 opens the way to complete turnover of the Legislature by 1999. Lawmakers, however, will be able to retain their pensions.

The California Supreme Court, clearing the way for a sweeping turnover in the state Legislature, on Thursday affirmed the constitutionality of Proposition 140, the term-limit initiative passed by voters last November.

The court, in the nation’s first major decision on legislative term limits, turned down a challenge to the measure by state lawmakers by a vote of 6 to 1, rejecting claims that the initiative improperly infringed on the voters’ right to choice of candidates or the candidates’ right to run for public office.

Any value in retaining incumbents in office was outweighed by “the state’s strong interests in protecting against an entrenched, dynastic legislative bureaucracy, and thereby encouraging new candidates to seek public office,” Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas wrote for the majority.

The court also rejected the legislators’ contention that the initiative’s impact on the fundamental structure of government was so drastic it represented a “revision” of the state Constitution, which cannot be performed by initiative.

The justices, resolving a key question arising from the ambiguous wording of the measure, held further that when a term expires, a legislator faces a lifetime ban from seeking that office again--rather than merely a prohibition on serving consecutive terms for that office.

While upholding the term restrictions along with a mandated 38% cut in the Legislature’s operating budget, the court struck down a provision of the measure that abolished the incumbent legislators’ pension system.

The single dissent came from Justice Stanley Mosk, who wrote that the measure was an improper constitutional revision and violated the requirement that initiatives be limited to a single subject.

Mosk, the only member of the court appointed by a Democratic governor, said the initiative process was “out of control in California,” and added that the high court was largely to blame by failing to restrict measures to a single issue comprehensible to voters.

The decision came amid intensifying campaigns for legislative term limits in other states. Last year, citizen-initiated reforms were passed in Colorado and Oklahoma. Backers hope to place measures on the ballot in at least 20 states next year.

Proposition 140, co-sponsored by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, was approved by 52% of the voters. The measure limits Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators and statewide elected officials to two four-year terms. The limits applied to any such official elected or reelected on Nov. 6, 1990, or later.

The initiative also reduced the Legislature’s operating budget by $70 million and abolished the lawmakers’ pension system, while allowing them to retain previously earned benefits. The budget cut was temporarily blocked by the court pending its ruling on the case, although the Legislature eliminated 600 jobs.

Thursday’s ruling means that by 1999 no current legislator or statewide elected official will be allowed to hold the same office--unless opponents can successfully appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Joseph Remcho, a San Francisco attorney representing the legislators in their court challenge, said such an appeal will be filed soon.

“This measure denies voters their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice,” said Remcho. “For those of us who care deeply about representative democracy, this is a very sad day. We had hoped that the court would use this case to send a signal that it was time to stop making law with 30-second television commercials (promoting initiatives). But just the opposite signal has gone out.”

Jonathan M. Coupal of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who represented sponsors of the initiative in court, welcomed the decision as a “victory for the voters” and said it would lend momentum to term-limit movements in other states.

“Even people who had qualms about Proposition 140 will realize a few years from now it was a good idea,” Coupal said. “Term limits are going to be the political reform tool for the 1990s.”

State Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, whose office defended the measure before the justices, called the ruling a milestone and praised the court for not departing from its practice of deferring to the voters whenever possible.

“The court has said again that it must resolve all legal doubts in favor of the initiative,” Lungren said. “That is a very broad statement in favor of the fourth branch of government--the people.”

Over the years, the state high court has upheld far-reaching ballot measures--such as Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax reform initiative; Proposition 8, the 1982 Crime Victims Bill of Rights; and Proposition 103, the 1988 insurance-reform initiative--against vigorous legal challenges. The last time the court struck down a major initiative occurred in 1966, when it invalidated Proposition 14, an initiative repealing state fair housing laws.

Lungren disputed the suggestion that Proposition 140 would bring a return of the “citizen legislature.” More likely, he said, there will be a mix of “career politician and citizen politician” in the Legislature.

Proposition 140 was challenged last February in a lawsuit brought by Democratic and Republican members of the Legislature, using private funds.

The lawmakers based much of their hope on a ruling last December by the high court striking down a key provision of Proposition 115, the 1990 anti-crime initiative. That provision would have required state courts--including the high court--to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings in defining the rights of criminal defendants. The state high court struck down the provision as an impermissible “revision” of the state Constitution.

But in Thursday’s ruling, Lucas said that while the Proposition 115 provision deprived state courts of their “foundational powers” to interpret state law, Proposition 140 did not affect either the structure or power of the Legislature. Legislators are still free to enact laws as they were in the past, he said.

Fears that term limits and budget cutbacks would irreparably hinder the legislative process are “largely speculative,” Lucas said.

The court noted also that barring the voters from limiting terms by initiative “could, as a practical matter, insulate the Legislature” from serious reforms. Constitutional revision--either by constitutional convention or ballot measure--must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, the court pointed out. To subject any legislative reform measure to the veto power of the Legislature would be “seriously inconsistent” with democratic principles, Lucas said.

The justices conceded that term limits affect the rights of voters and candidates, but said the impact of the restriction was eased by the fact that officeholders still could serve “a significant period” before limits expired and then run for a different office.

The court also turned down the legislators’ claim that the measure was an improper attempt to punish certain lawmakers. Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), both longtime legislators, were listed as targets of the measure in sponsors’ campaign literature. But the justices observed that the initiative applied equally to all legislators and said there was no evidence sponsors intended to “single out and punish” Roberti and Brown.

Finally, the justices rejected the contention that the initiative violated the single-subject limitation. Mosk, in his dissent, contended that it contained three independent subjects--term limits, pension benefit restrictions and legislative operating expenditures. But the majority concluded that its provisions were all related to the single theme of “incumbency reform.”

(Orange County Edition) Limiting Lawmakers’ Terms

The decision to uphold the limit on terms for state legislators, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, means that all members of the Assembly would have to leave office by 1997. Senators would have to leave by 1997 or 1999, depending when they are up for reelection. How We Voted on Term Limits (Prop. 140) Orange County: Yes: 60% No: 40% State: Yes: 52% No: 48% “I think it’s clear that the voters approved 140 on what they perceived to be a very necessary need, and the courts have responded to that. I think the court did the right thing and should be applauded.”

--Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach)

“I’m very supportive of the initiative process. I think the people are going to be extremely happy that (Proposition 140) is being upheld.”

--Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress)

When They Would Go

The maximum time some veterans and some new legislators could serve under Prop. 140: Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra) Elected: 1978 Out: 1997

Sen. Edward Royce (R-Anaheim) Elected: 1982 Out: 1999

Orange County’s Freshmen Assemblyman Tom Mays (R-Huntington Beach) Elected: 1990 Out: 1997

Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier) Elected: 1990 Out: 1999

Sen. John R. Lewis (R-Orange) Elected: 1991 Out: 1997

Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) Elected: 1990 Out: 1997

Assemblyman Mickey Conroy (R-Santa Ana) Elected: 1991 Out: 1997