Spite Does Not Make Right : State appeals courts are getting worked over by a vengeful Legislature

State legislators were hopping mad last October when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 140, the Draconian term-limits initiative passed in November, 1990. But they hardly could aim their anger at those directly responsible, the voters who approved the measure. Instead, lawmakers sharpened their budgetary knives for use on the bearer of the news that 140 was constitutional--the courts.

Many legislators are still smarting from the language the Supreme Court used in upholding the proposition, which limits Assembly and Senate terms and mandates massive cuts in the Legislature’s budget.

The Assembly initially proposed a 38% cut in the budget of the Supreme Court and proposed similarly big budgetary whacks at the Courts of Appeal and the Judicial Council, the well-regarded administrative and research arm of the state judiciary. Not insignificantly, 38% is the same figure by which Proposition 140 required the Legislature to cut its own budget.

Lawmakers also threatened to strip the chief justice of his power to administer the judiciary’s budget. All very obvious and heavy-handed--and extraordinarily poor public policy. Subsequent negotiation with the Senate has reduced the proposed cuts only slightly.

The Legislature’s attempt to draw blood from the justices who upheld Proposition 140 will largely miss its mark. Their salaries and benefits are constitutionally protected. Instead, the cuts will fall on the staff of the courts and the council. Many of these attorneys and secretaries have worked faithfully for years. They have gone without merit increases since last July, have been cajoled into taking unpaid furloughs and had to absorb cost increases in their health and dental plans.

The people of California will also suffer. These cuts will produce substantial delays in civil and criminal rulings, and they strike at the judiciary’s independence.

The courts, like all other state agencies, must bear budget reductions stemming from California’s fiscal crisis. But cuts must be grounded in more than spite.