Trial Begins in Suit to End State Term Limits

Seeking to overturn California’s term limits law, a group of legislators took their case to federal court here Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken convened the opening of what is expected to be a two-week nonjury trial over the latest challenge to the term limits law approved by voters in 1990. The law limits Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms.

It has caused significant turnover in the Legislature.

In previous court comments, Wilken has expressed doubts that California’s term limits, created by Proposition 140, comply with the U.S. Constitution.

She has said that she is troubled by a key provision of the law that imposes a lifetime ban on elected officials seeking their old jobs.

Wilken, who gave no indication Tuesday on how she may rule, could decide by the end of the year.

If she deems the lifetime ban to be unconstitutional, she would be compelled to strike down the entire law, according to lawyers involved in the case.

“She can’t rewrite it,” said Joseph Remcho, the San Francisco lawyer who is representing the three Assembly members who filed the suit.

In 1991, the state Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the law by the Legislature.

But three legislators filed a new suit in federal court, and the case was assigned to Wilken. She is exercising her power to review the issue again, homing in on whether the lifetime ban violates Assembly members’ 1st Amendment right to seek office, and their supporters’ right to vote for them.

*

“We don’t think it burdens candidates. They can run for any other office they want,” attorney Deborah Le Fetra said in defending term limits. Le Fetra works for Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm defending term limits on behalf of former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, an original proponent of Proposition 140.

Leading the attack on term limits is Assemblyman Tom Bates (D-Berkeley).

“Term limits is a wrecking ball for California government,” Bates, a 20-year veteran of the Assembly who was barred from seeking reelection this November, said outside the courtroom. “The long-term impact of term limits is going to be devastating.”

Bates has been joined in the suit by Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman (D-North Hollywood), who is being forced from office this year, and by Assemblywoman Martha M. Escutia (D-Huntington Park), who, if reelected this year, would be forced out in 1998.

Remcho spent much of the opening day questioning Friedman and her supporters, who said they wanted to continue voting for her.

“Her focus is my focus,” said Friedman supporter Harriet Brown Sculley of North Hollywood. “Barbara lives in the community. She has a child in the community. . . . She is part of us.”

Friedman has focused on education and health issues, pushing legislation that added a 2-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes for breast cancer research and treatment.

“I haven’t been able to give my best yet,” testified Friedman, first elected in 1991. “With more experience, I could do better.”

Representing Secretary of State Bill Jones in defense of the term limits law, Deputy Atty. Gen. Karen Leaf said in a legal brief that term limits are working by weakening the power of incumbency.

Leaf said that before term limits were imposed, only 11% of legislative seats changed hands between 1984 and 1991, and that virtually all incumbents who ran for reelection won.

“Incumbents could raise more campaign funds, had greater name recognition and had better access to the media. . . . They could deliver projects to their districts and render services to their constituents,” Leaf wrote.

*

Since term limits were instituted, the number of women in the Legislature has increased, and some political scientists believe that the number of minorities will increase too, Leaf said.

This year, the law is forcing 24 of the Assembly’s 80 members to leave office, and 10 of the Senate’s 40 senators. Eleven Assembly members are seeking other offices, mostly state Senate seats, and one senator is running for an Assembly seat.

If term limits are ruled illegal, term limit supporters could return to the ballot with a narrower initiative that would require lawmakers to take a two-year or four-year break before seeking reelection.