Challenge to Political Reform Initiative Rejected

Declaring the legal challenge to Proposition 212, a political reform measure, “untimely,” a Sacramento County Superior Court judge Friday refused to remove it from the Nov. 5 statewide ballot.

Judge James T. Ford said opponents, who are championing a rival ballot measure, waited too long to bring their case, in which they argued that Proposition 212 supporters omitted key details to win a spot on the ballot.

The impact of Ford’s decision is that voters this fall still will be faced with two competing reform measures that are intended to diminish the influence of special interests in lawmaking: Proposition 212, which would limit campaign contributions to state lawmakers to $100, and Proposition 208, which sets a $250 limit.

At issue in Friday’s hearing was whether petitions that voters were asked to sign to qualify Proposition 212 for the ballot should have spelled out that a 1990 curb on gifts to politicians, such as tickets for amusement parks or sports events, would be lifted by the measure’s passage.

Ford chided Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s office, which approved the petitions, for the omission.

He noted that Lungren’s staff reversed field this week, revising Proposition 212’s November ballot summary to spotlight the repeal of laws limiting gifts and banning speaking fees for public officials.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Linda A. Cabatic said that under the law, her office has the right to change the language in the 100-word ballot summaries.

Ford’s ruling won’t put an end to the skirmishing between the California Public Interest Research Group, which backs Proposition 212, and Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and other groups in a coalition that supports Proposition 208.

Backers of both measures had sought to craft a single proposal to put on the ballot, but had a falling out a year ago. Still, the measures have some similarities, such as banning contributions from lobbyists. Now, there are no limits on donations by lobbyists.

Tony Miller, an attorney who brought Friday’s action on behalf of the Common Cause coalition, said he plans to appeal Ford’s ruling next week.

In court, Miller, a former acting secretary of state, said Proposition 212’s backers had engaged in a “code of silence” to mislead voters about the gutting of ethics laws for public officials.

Common Cause contended that the ethics laws restricted some of the worst practices among lawmakers. The group estimates that the ethics laws resulted in a 77% drop in gifts to legislators.

But Doug Phelps, a spokesman for Proposition 212, said the state’s ethics laws have had little impact on legislative politics.

Focusing on the ethics laws, he said, “creates the impression we are cleaning up something when we haven’t done anything . . . about the real problem” of massive campaign contributions from special interests.

Proposition 212 adherents said repealing the ethics laws was one small part of their initiative. They said the thrust of Proposition 212 deals with campaign contributions, including a provision that would prohibit more than 25% of a candidate’s donations from coming from outside his district.

George Waters, an attorney for Proposition 212, said he expects to challenge Lungren’s revised ballot summary because it now clearly cites the repeal of ethics laws.

He charged that the change is the “result of an incredible snow job by our opponents.”