State Senate Votes to Limit Power of Courts

Charting a rare collision course with the judicial branch of government, the Senate on Friday narrowly approved far-reaching legislation to restrict the authority of California courts to impose taxes and order expenditures of public funds.

If the proposed amendment to the state Constitution receives the Assembly’s approval, which is uncertain, it would appear on the November ballot for voter ratification. It is not subject to action by Gov. Pete Wilson.

The newly advancing legislation is fiercely opposed by the state Judicial Council, chaired by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas of the state Supreme Court, the California State Bar and the American Civil Liberties Union. They have argued that the restriction would upset the balance of powers among the three branches of government.

But in an unusual alliance, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats and an Independent teamed up Friday to approve the measure on a 27-4 vote, the exact two-thirds margin required for approval by the 40-member Senate.

Conservative Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita) warned his colleagues against “throwing sand in the machinery of the separation of powers that have served us well for over 150 years.”

But Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), chairman of the Judiciary Committee and often a spokesman for liberals, countered that “a new form of judicial activism is alive in the land,” and it is “our duty to constrain that new brand of judicial activism.”

The legislation by Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier), a leading conservative on fiscal issues, would prohibit judges in California courts from imposing any tax not specifically authorized by the state Constitution or a statute.

Further, it would prohibit courts from ordering any legislative body or state agency to appropriate funds or make any payment from its internal support money unless the Legislature specifically gives its approval.

Hill asserted that a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision had the effect of upholding the authority of federal courts to increase taxes. He said he wanted to make sure that state and local judges in California did not follow suit.

The state Judicial Council, the administrative arm of the vast California court system, launched a highly unusual public condemnation of the Hill plan earlier in the week. It pressed the attack on Friday shortly after the Senate acted.

“Many California citizens will be denied their right to justice in state courts,” said William C. Vickrey, administrative director of the courts. “This is a fundamental unbalancing of our governmental structure undertaken without the careful consideration it deserves.”

He said, for example, that the legislation would allow “without the possibility of judicial remedy” the Legislature to refuse to fund such constitutionally authorized agencies as school districts, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Public Utilities Commission.

Senate Leader David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) helped pave the way for passage of the measure, declaring that the “Judicial Council should go back to law school. . . . This doesn’t upset the separation of powers, it returns us to conduct upon which this nation was founded and (from which) too many self-absorbed lawyers have tried to move us.”

However, liberal Sen. Nicholas Petris (D-Oakland), usually a Roberti ally, told the Senate that backers of the proposal had failed to cite a single case in which California courts were “running wild and saying, ‘We’re going to raise your taxes.’ ”

The Legislature rarely confronts the state Supreme Court on issues relating to the separation of powers, and this encounter involved a behind-the-scenes struggle over cutting the judiciary’s budget as state government undergoes a massive reduction in revenues.

Most state agencies are facing cuts of 15% because of a state budget shortfall. Legislative budget writers have targeted the Supreme Court and other appellate courts for a 15% cut from current levels and have proposed reducing the Judicial Council by 25%.

In an effort to stave off deep cuts, Chief Justice Lucas had privately lobbied legislative leaders, reportedly warning that functions of the courts were being jeopardized. Such warnings are familiar in the Capitol these days from virtually every affected interest.

If passed, the proposed amendment undoubtedly would be challenged in the courts--but it was far from clear how challengers would proceed.

Bernard E. Witkin, a legal author and adviser to the state Judicial Council, said the measure appeared open to challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation of the right to due process under the federal Constitution. The amendment also could be attacked before the state Supreme Court as conflicting with the California Constitution, he said.

Witkin acknowledged that such litigation could raise a host of questions--such as whether the state Supreme Court could properly review an issue so closely related to its own operations or whether a special panel would have to be appointed to decide the case.

Ingram reported from Sacramento and Times Legal Affairs Writer Phil Hager contributed to this story from San Francisco.