Lawmakers Say Ruling Will Shift Power in Sacramento

When the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 140’s term limits and staff cuts Thursday, the justices ensured that power would swing from the Legislature and toward the governor, lobbyists and bureaucrats, a number of politicians said.

Vast consequences that the electorate never intended will mean that faceless bureaucrats will have more say over Californians’ lives than elected representatives, some warn.

The people who stand to lose the most, the legislative leadership, were the most outspoken against the decision.

The office of Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) on Thursday put out a list of possible statements for members to make when talking to the press about the court ruling. Members were advised to say: “Of course, I am disappointed. It is difficult to be told that I can have five more years to do the only job I have ever wanted--to serve the people of my district in the California state Assembly.”

Brown said of the ruling, “I find it difficult to believe, among other things, that a lifetime ban on anything could be ruled constitutional.” He has served in the Assembly since 1965.

But Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), one of a handful of incumbents to support Proposition 140, obviously wasn’t reading from the Speaker’s script.

“I think that the measure will have the desired effect of turning that building (the Capitol) upside down and shaking it clean,” McClintock said.

Most lawmakers contacted say they are resigned to living in a brave new political world of the voter-approved initiative, but they aren’t in the least bit happy about it. “There are no term limits on the bureaucrats,” said Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), who supported a less stringent term-limit measure. “So the unintentional consequence is to elevate the power of the faceless bureaucracy.”

One immediate impact will be new cuts in the already pared-down legislative staff.

The 230 employees who work for the nonpartisan offices of the legislative analyst and the auditor general already have been served notice that their jobs will be cut--an order that had been put on hold by the court until it ruled on the constitutionality of the initiative.

The combined effects of staff cuts and term limits will weaken the Legislature’s impact, many fear.

“In the long run, you end up with a Legislature that is less competent, less effective,” said Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno, who has served in the Legislature for 20 years. “I’m pessimistic. . . . To me it is a logical next step to say, ‘Let’s go back to a part-time Legislature’ “--something Maddy strongly opposes.

Approved last November by a 52%-48% vote, Proposition 140 imposes lifetime term limits on every state elected official except the insurance commissioner. The governor and other statewide officers are limited to a total of two terms. Assembly members are limited to six years; state senators to eight. The measure also requires that the Legislature’s budget be reduced to $114 million this year--a cut of 38%.

The authors of the measure steadfastly predicted that the initiative would survive a legal challenge and were pleased with the state Supreme Court’s 6-1 decision to uphold the measure.

The decision heralds “a bright new era in California politics,” said former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, one of its authors.

Facing the certainty that they will be out of office within six to eight years, lawmakers “show a willingness to get involved in the issues, and not delegate to their staff or sit on their hands,” Schabarum said.

He predicted that the existing legislative leadership of both parties will be “gone sooner rather than later”--after next year’s legislative elections. Speaker Brown, he said, “will have a tough time getting 41 votes” to hold onto his position after next year’s election.

Gov. Pete Wilson, who supported Proposition 140 during his run for office last fall, expressed distress at the loss of “hard-working and diligent public servants.” But he added that “the influx of fresh blood and enthusiasm into the legislative process will ultimately serve the people of California well.” Another co-author of the initiative, Lewis K. Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee, agreed, saying that many incumbents are going to be scrambling to run for offices that currently have no term limits, particularly in races for Congress.

In the Capitol, rumors were sweeping the hallways as legislative staff wondered whether they would be victims of yet another round of layoffs or if they would see cuts in their pay.

One Sacramento-based political consultant said that by midday, four legislative employees she knew all had asked about getting jobs in her office.

Times staff writer Carl Ingram also contributed to this story.

The Ruling on Prop. 140

Here’s a look at the state Supreme Court’s 6-1 decision that upheld Proposition 140, the term-limit initiative passed by voters last fall.

HIGH POINTS

Statewide officeholders such as the governor may serve two four-year terms, as may members of the Board of Equalization. State senators whose terms began in 1991 or later may serve two four-year terms. Senators whose terms began before 1991 may serve their current term plus one. Assembly members may serve three two-year terms. There was no limit previously.

The limits apply for a lifetime. The court rejected the argument that the limits should apply only to consecutive terms.

Claims by state legislators that term limits infringe on the people’s right to vote for candidates of their choice, or that the measure is an improper “revision” of the state Constitution, were rejected.

A required 38% cutback in the Legislature’s operating budget was left intact. About 600 positions have already been eliminated.

A provision abolishing the current lawmakers’ pension system was struck down.

U.S. senators and members of Congress were not covered by Proposition 140.

THE OFFICIALS

The clock began running for all officeholders at the start of 1991. Here is how the various offices are affected:

Governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, controller, superintendent of public instruction: If reelected in 1994, must leave office by the end of in 1998.

State Senate: The 20 senators who began their terms in 1991 must leave by the end of 1998 if reelected in 1994. The 20 senators who were in the middle of their terms in 1991 must leave by the end of 1996 if reelected.

Assembly: All 80 members must leave office by the end of 1996 if reelected twice more.

Board of Equalization: Must leave office by the end of 1998 if reelected in 1994.

Insurance commissioner: Not covered by Proposition 140.