Amendment to Limit Court Powers Criticized

California judicial authorities on Wednesday assailed a sweeping proposed constitutional amendment that they said would allow legislators and officials to block court-ordered monetary payments for everything from Medi-Cal abortions to negligent driving by a state employee.

The executive committee of the state Judicial Council said the proposal, now pending before the state Senate, would “fundamentally rewrite the California Constitution and reshape our basic governmental structure.”

In an unusual step, the Council committee issued a detailed analysis of the proposed amendment, warning of vast adverse effects should it be adopted by the Legislature and enacted by the voters.

The 21-member Council, chaired by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, includes judges, legislators and State Bar leaders and functions as administrative arm of the state judiciary.

Bernard E. Witkin of Berkeley, a longtime legal author and Council adviser, said in an interview that the proposal appeared unprecedented in scope. “This attacks the whole concept of separation of (governmental) powers,” he said. “The people will still have rights, but will be without any means of enforcing them.”

The proposal, sponsored by State Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier) and 22 other legislators, would bar courts from compelling any legislative body or state agency to appropriate funds or make any payment unless it comes from a specific appropriation by the Legislature.

A separate provision also would prohibit courts from imposing or increasing taxes without specific authorization. That restriction appeared aimed at countering a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April, 1990, allowing federal judges to order local tax increases to finance court-ordered school desegregation.

Hill rejected the Council’s attack Wednesday, saying the amendment would actually restore--not upset--the balance of governmental power in California. The courts have “subtly and systematically” eroded the constitutional power of the purse strings of the Legislature, he said in an interview. “They don’t like it when all of a sudden they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.”

The lawmaker cited as an example an order last year by a Sacramento Superior Court judge directing that grant checks be sent to welfare recipients, even though the Legislature and Gov. Pete Wilson were deadlocked over enactment of a new state budget.

In its analysis, the Council committee said that the proposal in its current form was so broad it could have drastic effects. Among other things, the committee said, it could:

* Nullify court-ordered payments for Medi-Cal abortions after legislative restrictions on such abortions have been found illegal.

* Allow officials to refuse to pay any monetary judgment against the state--ranging from claims for negligent driving by a state employee to payment for health or welfare benefits held required by a court.

* Prevent parents or school districts from enforcing the Legislature’s constitutional obligation to fund schools and provide free textbooks.

* Bar the use of state funds to help pay local costs of implementing state-mandated school desegregation.

Meanwhile, both Republican and Democratic legislators, asking not to be quoted by name, said the legislation was aimed in part at signaling lawmakers’ displeasure with the state Supreme Court for upholding Proposition 140, the legislative term-limitation initiative passed by the voters last year. A proposed cutback in the high court’s budget that ranges from 20% to 34% is pending before the Legislature.

Hill denied the amendment was a retaliatory move against the courts, saying it was meant simply to ensure greater legislative control over state expenditures.

“When (courts) order welfare checks to be sent out because the Legislature is in a stalemate, in my view you have exceeded proper judicial authority,” Hill said. “We (the Legislature) ought to have the authority to have those checks sent out.”

Hager reported from San Francisco and Ingram from Sacramento.