COLUMN RIGHT/ STEVEN S. LUCAS : Lawmakers’ Revenge, Pure and Simple : The state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 140. Now it may pay a steep price.

In late 1991, in a decision penned by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, the California Supreme Court upheld the voters’ initiative to limit state legislative terms, Proposition 140. The measure not only imposed a lifetime term limit for members of the Assembly and the Senate, it also mandated a 38% reduction in the Legislature’s bloated internal operating budget.

Now, less than five months after the court’s decision, the budget-writing subcommittee of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee has approved a proposal to cut the California Supreme Court’s own operating budget by 38%.

This 38% figure is clearly no coincidence. No matter what spin cynical politicians such as Los Angeles Assemblyman Richard Polanco (“Everyone has to share in this budget crisis.”) try to put on the proposal, it is retaliation pure and simple.

Blinded by the ugly face of revenge, our elected officials have once again failed us by ignoring the long-term consequences of their short-term political manipulations.

First, the Legislature fails to acknowledge the fundamental differences between itself and the third, non-political branch of government, the judiciary. Apparently the Legislature is intent on treating the Supreme Court as just another political entity, like the Governor, willing to wheel and deal.

In treating the Supreme Court as it would any other player at the table, the Legislature risks depleting the judiciary’s historical reputation for political impenetrability.

Second, the Legislature views this as a simple trade-off situation, the proposed budget cut as payment in kind for the court’s decision in Legislature vs. Eu. Such logic ignores the Supreme Court’s limited role in the Proposition 140 battle.

The court’s role was limited to the determination of whether under the U. S. Constitution the people could limit terms of legislators and reduce their budget through amendment of the California Constitution. The court did not determine whether or not Proposition 140 was good policy, the people did.

But of course the Legislature does not have the courage to accuse California voters of bad judgment. Instead it has searched for and found a scapegoat. As Chief Justice Lucas saw clearly, it’s an attempt to kill the messenger.

Lastly, the Legislature does not understand the practical consequences of its actions. The court, compelled by the state Constitution to directly review the cases of each of the 323 inmates sentenced to death in California, is already grossly backlogged due to the foot-dragging legacy of the Rose Bird court.

A full 40% of the court’s caseload is comprised of appeals of death judgments. And the rate of death verdicts in California is on the rise.

Now, the court is expected to operate on 38% less. The people who will suffer most will be the those who have already suffered enough, the victims’ families who must wait to see justice administered before they can get on with their lives.

In slashing $6.5 million from the court’s meager $17-million budget, the Legislature also ignores the fact that the nearly $5 million earmarked for the court-appointed defense counsel program is largely non-discretionary.

This leaves a paltry $5 million for all of the court’s operations, including judicial salaries, staff salaries, security, pensions, benefits, rent and facilities. By comparison, the Legislature allots itself well over $100 million for its own operations and perks.

Every indication is that there is broad support for axing the court’s budget in the Sacramento swamp we euphemistically refer to as the Legislature. With short-sighted thinking like this, it is no wonder that the people adopted the term limits that will throw these rascals onto the streets come 1996.