RULING ON TERM LIMITS : State Lawmakers Welcome Ruling : Congress: Members of California’s delegation say court’s decision banning term limits will likely revive drive for constitutional amendment.

A court decision forbidding states to limit the service of members of Congress was widely applauded by California lawmakers Monday--even those who recently supported a constitutional amendment that would have restricted federal terms.

The ruling was welcomed by some of the most zealous term-limit proponents who said that the patchwork approach to passing laws, state by state, creates an uneven national playing field that would put California at a tremendous power disadvantage.

“Absent a constitutional amendment, this free-lancing by the states should not and will not stand,” said Rep. Jane Harman of Rolling Hills, one of only three California Democrats who supported the constitutional amendment that failed to clear Congress in March. “With some states passing [term-limit] laws and some not . . . California would definitely have been hurt.”

The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 ruling that individual states may not cap the terms of their members of Congress. The decision invalidated federal term-limit laws in 23 states, including California, where voters in 1992 passed a proposition that would have sent some federal incumbents packing as early as 1998. The ruling does not affect term limits for state officeholders in California.

The new Republican majority in Congress failed to pass a constitutional amendment to restrict terms of service. The California delegation split largely along party lines on that vote, but lawmakers on both sides of the issue wanted the case that was before the high court struck down.

Even Rep. Elton Gallegly, (R-Simi Valley), who supported the California initiative, had no qualms with the court ruling that rendered it invalid. He said that he backed the initiative in hopes other states would be moved to do the same.

“I have always been a strong advocate of states’ rights,” Gallegly said. “However, it is really important that all states have the same laws for congressional term limits. . . . We all should play by exactly the same rules.”

A few lawmakers argued that the high court had circumvented the will of California voters, who passed Proposition 164, with 64% of the vote, to limit House members to three two-year terms and senators to two six-year terms.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling today furthers our resolve to elect members to join the Republican majority in the House who support term limits,” said Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego). “Californians have spoken on this issue, as have the citizens of . . . other states, and it is our job to muster the votes to pass it constitutionally.”

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who voted for term-limit legislation passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, said that she “intends to vote for it when it comes to the full Senate.”

But some legislators pointed to the recent large turnover in Congress as evidence that voters are already limiting tenure--at the polls.

“The ballot box is the best mechanism to enforce term limits,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), a term limit opponent who has served 22 years in the House. “Fifty percent or more of House members have served only since 1990, indicating there has already been a significant turnover due to voters’ dissatisfaction. . . . Those who continue to be effective get reelected. Those who aren’t, don’t.”

Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), one of just three California Republicans to oppose the constitutional amendment, advocated clipping not the number of terms but the power of the incumbent. He advocates campaign finance reform and more competitive congressional district lines.

“It is those things that are going to help ensure the turnover the people of California are seeking,” Dreier said.

Other lawmakers are not bothering to wait for a law to bump them out, opting for self-imposed limits instead. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) and Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, each has vowed to serve no more than 12 years.

“This issue is not going to go away,” said Rohrabacher, now serving his fourth term. “The people expect us to take the constitutional steps to put term limits in the Constitution.”

Times staff writers James Bornemeier and Marc Lacey in Washington and Peter Warren in Orange County contributed to this story.