Decision ’96 / Key issues and races in the California vote : Businesses Duel With Lawyers on 3 Measures

In a boom year for direct democracy, Californians on Tuesday will decide major ballot measures ranging from paying for school construction and earthquake safety projects to dramatically changing the civil justice system and the way politicians are nominated.

There are also measures that could reinstate mountain lion hunting, repeal local rent control ordinances in mobile home parks and expand certain criminal penalties.

Partly because of the state’s early primary this year--it previously has been held in June--voters seem to have paid little attention to the election, at least until the last week. But that has not been the case for those with something at stake Tuesday.

Millions of dollars in television and radio ads have been spent by the two sides warring over the three anti-litigation measures--Propositions 200, 201 and 202. Each side has a standard script: Proponents paint lawyers as greedy, while opponents characterize corporate executives as devious. Both sides claim to represent the consumer.

Meanwhile, the usually warring Republican and Democratic parties find themselves on the same side--fighting a measure that would create an “open primary” in California. It would allow people to vote in the primary for candidates in any political party, and party officials fear that it would dilute their authority.

There are 12 propositions on the ballot. Using the 1992 primary as a barometer, election experts predict that less than half the 14.5 million eligible voters will have cast ballots by the time polling places close at 8 p.m. Tuesday.

*

To sway public opinion on the propositions, campaign consultants and donors will have spent $25 million on television ads, slate mailers and other campaign efforts. Spending in the final days likely will decide the outcome of several measures. A Los Angeles Times poll last week found many voters unfamiliar with the various ballot issues.

When the measures were explained to likely voters, the poll showed that a majority backed Proposition 203, the $3-billion school construction bond, and Proposition 198. One anti-litigation measure also led, but had less than 50% support.

Proposition 198 is the citizen-generated initiative to create an open primary system in which voters, regardless of party registration, could vote for the candidates of their choice.

Pushed by Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Stanford), Proposition 198 is an effort by moderates to recapture some of their political clout. Campbell lost his primary bid for U.S. Senate in 1994 to conservative Bruce Herschensohn.

The measure is bitterly opposed by the state Democratic and Republican parties. Their leaders argue that Proposition 198 would defeat the purpose of a primary--to let parties choose their own nominees for the fall general elections.

In a joint statement, state GOP Chairman John Herrington and state Democratic Party Chairman Bill Press called Proposition 198 “a cynical attempt by a few self-serving politicians to twist the rules of California’s electoral process to advance their own careers.”

While the parties focus on Proposition 198, most of the money being spent on ballot measures--more than $20 million--is fueling the fight over Propositions 200, 201 and 202, a package aimed at curtailing litigation.

In commercials and campaign events, both sides try to portray themselves as the true representatives of consumers. Corporations that fend off lawsuits are paying for the “Yes” campaign, and lawyers who file the lawsuits are paying for the “No” campaign. Defense lawyers recently gave $600,000 to defeat all three.

“The problem is we have too many lawyers and too many lawsuits. It’s hurting the economy,” said Tom Proulx, the millionaire engineer who co-founded software giant Intuit and heads the campaign for the measures.

Other supporters include Gov. Pete Wilson, the state Chamber of Commerce, conservative taxpayer groups and a few moderate Democrats, including Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council.

In addition to lawyers, opponents include Ralph Nader, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and groups representing senior citizens, labor and environmentalists.

Proposition 200 would create a no-fault auto insurance system. Drivers would turn to their own insurance carriers to cover their injuries and, in almost all instances, would be barred from suing motorists who cause accidents.

In exchange for giving up the right to sue, Californians likely would see their insurance rates drop, proponents say, although the initiative does not mandate a rate reduction. The Times poll showed Proposition 200 trailing.

*

Proposition 201 has attracted corporate money. It seeks to limit--opponents say abolish--lawsuits in state court by investors who believe they have been bilked by publicly traded corporations. The initiative includes a “loser pays” provision. Plaintiffs or their lawyers who lose a case would pay the cost of defending the lawsuit, which often mounts into the millions.

Proposition 201’s backers say their aim is to limit lawsuits by shareholders over drops in stock price. But the measure extends to all class-action securities litigation and would make it more difficult for investors to sue over major financial fraud in state court.

“Pension funds are what’s at stake,” said Joseph Cotchett, a Burlingame attorney who handles major fraud cases and opposes 201. Although pension funds are managed by professionals, he said, “very savvy professionals get taken to the cleaners every day by very savvy professionals.”

Primarily because of Proposition 201, corporations have pumped more than $11 million into the campaign. The computer chip maker Intel is the largest single donor at $800,000, followed by David Packard, co-founder of the computer firm Hewlett-Packard, at $600,000. Wall Street also is heavily involved. Partners of Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts, the Wall Street firm that bought and later sold R.J. Reynolds tobacco company, donated $99,999.

Proposition 202, the third litigation initiative, would cap fees charged by plaintiffs’ lawyers at 15% when cases settle quickly. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say the cap would make it impossible for them to represent individuals in complex litigation. The Times’ poll showed the measure leading 45%-35%, with other voters undecided.

Although each anti-litigation proposition deals with highly complex areas of the law, the outcome most likely will turn on the persuasive power of 30-second TV spots.

The lawyers have aired television ads portraying corporate backers of the initiatives as wolves on a hunt. Proponents have aired ads of cackling lawyers slapping one another and of lawyers as devils to convey the notion that lawyers and litigation are out of control.

In addition to voting on the litigation war, Californians will decide whether to spend $5 billion on bonds to help ease California’s multibillion-dollar backlog of public works projects. Wilson and legislators agreed to place bonds on the ballot for school construction and earthquake reinforcement of freeways and bridges.

Proposition 192 would provide $2 billion to retrofit 1,100 bridges against earthquake failure. The measure includes $650 million for toll bridges, primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area. With interest, the bond would cost $3.4 billion, repaid from general tax dollars over the next 25 years.

The reinforcement projects have been identified since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake caused several bridges and overpasses to buckle and collapse.

Former Gov. George Deukmejian supports the bond issue, as does Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) and Assembly Democratic Leader Richard Katz of Sylmar. The campaign is funded by construction firms. The Planning and Conservation League has mounted an opposition campaign, and opponents say Southern California would be shortchanged in the way the money would be spent.

*

Proposition 203 would authorize $3 billion for construction and remodeling of classrooms for kindergarten through high school, plus community colleges, California state universities and the University of California. The bond would be repaid over 25 years, at a total cost with interest of $5.2 billion.

Two-thirds of the money would be spent on classroom construction to help accommodate the 140,000 new students entering California public schools each year. The other third would go to college and university campuses.

Supporters include schools, business and organized labor. Major funding comes from construction firms, public school unions and university alumni associations.

Other propositions include:

* Proposition 197, which would repeal key provisions of a 1990 initiative that banned hunting of mountain lions. Placed on the ballot by the Legislature, the measure calls on the state Department of Fish and Game to prepare a plan for managing mountain lions. The plan could include renewing annual cougar hunts, which have not taken place since 1972.

The National Rifle Assn. has donated $100,000 to help win passage. Other supporters include hunting groups, the California Farm Bureau and the California Cattlemen’s Assn. It is opposed by environmentalist and animal rights groups.

* Proposition 199, which would repeal local rent control ordinances in mobile home parks and limit state authority to impose statewide rent control. Rent control would be phased out gradually when a mobile home is sold, vacated or its ownership transferred, a process that likely would take years.

* Proposition 193, which would eliminate property tax increases for grandchildren who assume ownership of a family home--the same waiver now given when parents transfer property to their sons or daughters.

* Proposition 194, which would prohibit prison inmates employed on prison work projects from collecting unemployment insurance benefits when released.

* Propositions 195 and 196, which would add murder during carjackings, murder of jurors, and murder during drive-by shootings to the list of crimes for which capital punishment can be imposed.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Propositions

Here is a list of the 12 state propositions on Tuesday’s ballot:

PROPOSITION 192

* What It Would Do: Authorize the state to sell $2 billion in bonds to pay for earthquake reinforcement of 1,100 bridges; includes $650 million for seismic retrofitting of toll bridges.

* Supporters: Gov. Pete Wilson, California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Assn., the California Transit Assn., construction firms likely to win bridge work contracts.

* Opponents: Assemblyman Bernie Richter (R-Chico), Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters, National Tax Limitation Committee, the Planning and Conservation League, Sierra Club.

PROPOSITION 193

* What It Would Do: Eliminate property tax increases for grandchildren who assume ownership of a family home.

* Supporters: Republican Assemblymen David Knowles of Placerville and Bill Hoge of Pasadena and state Sen. Maurice Johannessen (R-Redding).

* Opponents: Attorney Gary B. Wesley of San Jose.

PROPOSITION 194

* What It Would Do: Prohibit inmates who work in prison from collecting unemployment insurance benefits when released.

* Supporters: State Senate Republican leader Rob Hurtt of Garden Grove, California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. and Dean Andal, member of the State Board of Equalization.

* Opponents: Stephen C. Birdlebough of the Quaker group Friends Committee on Legislation of California.

PROPOSITION 195

* What It Would Do: Add murder during carjackings, kidnap-carjackings and retaliatory murder of jurors to the list of death penalty crimes.

* Supporters: State Sen. Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista), Assemblywoman Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego), Assemblyman Jim Morrissey (R-Santa Ana), Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury.

* Opponents: Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman, formerly of Leo Baeck Temple in West Los Angeles, Jeannette G. Arnquist of the Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino, the Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern California.

PROPOSITION 196

* What It Would Do: Make murder in drive-by shootings a death penalty crime.

* Supporters: Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, Women Prosecutors of California, California District Attorneys Assn., California Organization of Police and Sheriffs.

* Opponents: American Civil Liberties Union, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

PROPOSITION 197

* What It Would Do: End special protections for mountain lions, restoring the state Fish and Game Commission’s ability to allow cougar hunting.

* Supporters: National Rifle Assn., Safari Club, California Rifle and Pistol Assn., California Cattlemen’s Assn., California Farm Bureau, state Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Carnelian Bay).

* Opponents: Humane Society, Sierra Club, Fund for Animals, Mountain Lion Foundation, California Park Rangers Assn, state Sen. Nicholas C. Petris (D-Oakland).

PROPOSITION 198

* What It Would Do: Create an open primary, allowing voters, regardless of party registration, to vote for candidates of any party in primary elections.

* Supporters: U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Stanford), former GOP gubernatorial nominee Houston Flournoy, former Fair Political Practices Commission Chairman Dan Stanford, state Sen. Lucy Killea (I-San Diego), University of California political scientist Eugene Lee.

* Opponents: State GOP Party Chairman John Herrington, former state Democratic Party Chairman Bill Press, former GOP nominee for U.S. Senate Bruce Herschensohn, former Democratic Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, California Common Cause.

PROPOSITION 199

* What It Would Do: Repeal local rent control ordinances on mobile home parks and prevent the state from imposing new statewide rent control regulations on mobile home parks.

* Supporters: Western Mobilehome Park Owners Assn., Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters, California GOP, state Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside), state Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale) and Assemblyman Trice Harvey (R-Bakersfield).

* Opponents: Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, American Assn. of Retired Persons, Congress of California Seniors, California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, California Democratic Party, state Sen. William A. Craven (R-Oceanside).

PROPOSITION 200

* What It Would Do: Create no-fault auto insurance in which drivers would turn to their own insurance companies to cover injuries; bars drivers from suing over almost all accidents.

* Supporters: Wilson, writer Andrew Tobias, computer engineer Tom Proulx and California Chamber of Commerce.

* Opponents: Ralph Nader, Consumers’ Union, Consumer Federation of America, Harvey Rosenfield, various plaintiffs and defense lawyers.

PROPOSITION 201

* What It Would Do: Limit class-action securities litigation by investors against publicly traded corporations and impose a “loser pays” system in which plaintiffs pay the cost of defending the suits, if the defense prevails.

* Supporters: Wilson, David Packard, founder of computer firm Hewlett-Packard, Bank of America, Chevron, California Chamber of Commerce, Assemblyman Louis Caldera (D-Los Angeles), U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), various Wall Street, high-tech and accountancy firms.

* Opponents: Congress of California Seniors, California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, Nader, Consumers’ Union, attorneys who bring such litigation, and some lawyers who defend such lawsuits.

PROPOSITION 202

* What It Would Do: Force early lawsuit settlements by requiring plaintiffs to reveal the bulk of their cases at the start of litigation; caps plaintiffs’ lawyers’ fees at 15% if case settles quickly.

* Supporters: Wilson, law professors Lester Brickman of Benjamin Cardozo Law School in New York and Jeffrey O’Connell of University of Virginia, Proulx, state Chamber of Commerce.

* Opponents: Nader, Rosenfield, Consumers’ Union, California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, National Resources Defense Council, various plaintiffs’ attorneys.

PROPOSITION 203

* What It Would Do: Authorize the state to sell $3 billion in bonds to build and renovate classrooms for California’s public schools, colleges and universities.

* Supporters: Wilson, California Teachers Assn., University of California and state university alumni associations, state PTA, state Chamber of Commerce and various construction firms.

* Opponents: Libertarian Party.