2 of 3 Anti-Litigation Measures Trail at Polls

California voters were rejecting at least two of three anti-litigation initiatives on Tuesday’s ballot, and also appeared to have rebuffed both major political parties by approving a measure to dramatically change how candidates are nominated.

In addition, voters in early returns were approving by a 60% to 40% margin a $3-billion bond for school and university construction, and by a 58% to 42% margin a $2-billion bond for seismic reinforcement of bridges and freeway overpasses.

While the voters were defeating measures to impose no-fault auto insurance and restrict class-action lawsuits against corporations, early results showed that by a slim margin they favored imposing caps on lawyers’ fees.

“We were outspent by the trial lawyers” who opposed the measures, said Tom Proulx, the Silicon Valley engineer who co-founded Intuit Inc., and headed the campaign for the three measures to limit lawsuits. “Voters were being bombarded by lies from the trial lawyers.”

Californians were also rejecting a measure that would have allowed renewed hunting of mountain lions. They gave overwhelming support to measures expanding the death penalty to include the murder of jurors, and murders committed in carjackings and in drive-by shootings.

In a special election with implications for control of the state Senate, Democratic Assemblyman Byron Sher of Palo Alto led Republican Patrick Shannon. If Sher emerges as the victor, he is expected to take office this week and give Democrats 22 of 40 seats in the Senate.

Also in the Bay Area, a measure to build a downtown baseball stadium in San Francisco led by a wide margin.

Voters statewide also approved measures to deny unemployment benefits to parolees who give up their prison jobs when they are released from prison, and limit property tax increases when grandchildren inherit their grandparents’ homes. They were rejecting a measure to lift rent control from mobile home parks.

The campaign for and against the propositions cost more than $25 million. The money was spent primarily on broadcast advertising and mailings that condensed complex and far-reaching ideas into 30-second arguments.

The ads depicted a treed and helpless mountain lion being shot and falling to its death, corporate executives portrayed as wolves on the hunt, and lawyers as slapstick characters pleading with the devil to help them defeat the anti-litigation Propositions 200, 201 and 202.

Open Primaries Gain

Some of the spots in the lawyer-bashing campaign for Propositions 200, 201 and 202 ridiculed the California trial lawyers association’s new name--Consumer Attorneys of California--as standing for “CACA.”

In early returns, Proposition 198, the measure with the most sweeping political implications, led by a 62% to 38% margin. The open primary measure would permit voters, regardless of their party registration, to cast ballots for candidates of their choice in primary elections.

“People are tired of Democrats bashing Republicans and Republicans bashing Democrats,” said Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Stanford), one of Proposition 198’s major backers. “People are looking for candidates who will look at the issues instead of party orthodoxy.”

Supported by political moderates but opposed by Democratic and Republican party leaders, Proposition 198 would change California’s long-standing system in which Democratic voters vote only for Democratic candidates in primaries and Republicans nominate GOP candidates.

Although Proposition 198 qualified for the March ballot more than a year ago, Republican and Democratic party officials were caught by surprise when they realized that the measure had wide support. By then, they had earmarked their money for other issues and candidates, and had little left to mount a campaign against the measure.

“Maybe the courts will gut it. Maybe something else will come up on another ballot,” state Republican Party Chairman John Herrington said.

The two bond measures, Propositions 192 and 203, sought to let the state sell $5 billion in notes to fund school and earthquake safety projects. They represent the largest single expenditure ever placed before California voters.

Proposition 203 seeks to provide $3 billion for construction, repair and renovation of public schools and colleges. The $3 billion would be paid off over 25 years at a cost of about $5.2 billion, interest included.

In 1994, a smaller bond measure fell 35,000 votes short of winning. This time, backers spent $1.3 million on the campaign. Most of the money came from public school unions, university alumni groups and construction firms that would do the work.

Proposition 192 would provide $2 billion to retrofit 1,100 bridges and overpasses against earthquake failure, and includes $650 million for toll bridges, primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area. The bonds would be paid off over 25 years, at a cost $3.4 billion with interest.

Caltrans undertook an assessment of the seismic stability of bridges and overpasses after the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes, which caused several bridges and overpasses to buckle and collapse.

By far the bulk of the money was spent on the fight over the package of initiatives to curtail litigation. By the time all the bills are paid, the campaigns will have cost more than $22 million.

Proponents of Propositions 200, 201 and 202 hoped the March primary election would draw large numbers of Republicans who would be receptive to their anti-lawyer campaign theme.

In fact, The Times exit poll showed that all groups and all regions of the state opposed Proposition 200, the no-fault car insurance measure, and were lukewarm on the other measures.

The campaign gave Californians a glimpse of what makes trial lawyers so powerful in the state capital, where they spend about $1 million a year on lobbying.

Although they number about 5,000, the lawyers’ lobbyists consistently bottle up almost all legislative attempts to limit the right to sue.

“They are deeply committed to the work they do,” said Bill Carrick, the Los Angeles consultant who managed the trial lawyers’ effort. “They’re not going to go quietly in the night.”

Major TV Campaigns

Trial lawyers raised $10 million to battle the initiatives, and dominated the television airwaves where such campaigns are won or lost. The lawyers got help in the form of endorsements from Ralph Nader, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers’ Union, publisher of Consumer Reports.

However, the lawyers infuriated Consumers’ Union by sending an attack mailer on the final weekend that made heavy use of the group’s name without approval.

“We will very seriously consider whether we will ever work with the trial lawyers again,” said Judith Bell, co-director of Consumers’ Union’s West Coast office, adding that the lawyers don’t “have a leg to stand on in terms of integrity.”

Other propositions on Tuesday’s ballot were:

* Proposition 197, to repeal key provisions of a 1990 initiative that banned hunting of mountain lions in California. It was backed by the National Rifle Assn., other gun groups and farmers. Environmentalist and animal rights groups opposed it.

* Proposition 199, to repeal local rent control ordinances in mobile home parks and replace them with a statewide statute. Written and financed by mobile home park owners, the measure sought to phase out local rent controls.

* Proposition 193, to eliminate property tax increases for grandchildren who assume ownership of a family home.

* Proposition 194, to prohibit prison inmates who have prison jobs from collecting unemployment insurance benefits when they are released.

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