State Term Limits Law Struck Down by Federal Judge

A federal judge in Oakland struck down California’s term limits law Wednesday, ruling that the 1990 initiative that has transformed state politics violates the U.S. Constitution by denying voters the right to vote for experienced incumbents.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken focused her ruling on a single provision of the initiative, one that bans veteran lawmakers for life from seeking reelection once they have served their terms and are forced from office.

Wilken concluded that the lifetime ban violates the constitutional rights of voters to vote for the candidates of their choice, and the rights of veteran lawmakers to reenter politics by running for their old seats. Moreover, the law’s intent--to limit the power of incumbency--could have been achieved by less drastic means, Wilken said.

“Because California’s extreme version of term limits imposes a severe burden on the right of its citizens to vote for candidates of their choice,” Wilken wrote, “and because it is not narrowly tailored to advance the compelling state interests, it violates the 1st and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.”

Proponents of term limits vowed to appeal immediately to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and both sides predicted that the case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“For one federal judge to step in and overturn the position of the people is inappropriate,” said Secretary of State Bill Jones, the main defendant.

Wilken postponed her decision from taking effect until after the appeal is decided. Lawyers for both sides said they will seek a quick ruling from the appellate court, so candidates will have time to make decisions about what offices to seek in 1998.

The judge took note of the political implications of her ruling and likely reaction. “This court does not lightly overrule the political judgment of the California electorate,” Wilken wrote in her 53-page decision. “However, it is the singular duty of a federal court to determine when political judgment must give way to constitutional principle.”

Word of the decision spread like an electric current through the state Capitol, sparking staff conferences around copy machines and widespread speculation among lawmakers.

In the Legislature, at least one freshman lawmaker, Assemblyman Rico Oller (R-San Andreas), introduced a bill to reinstate term limits. Senate Republican Leader Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove) lashed out at Wilken, saying that her ruling “illustrates how entirely out of touch with reality our federal judiciary appears to the citizens of this state.”

Other legislators raised the possibility of pushing for a new term limit measure that would be put to a statewide vote, perhaps as early as this fall in a special election.

“The voters have decided that they want term limits and now it’s up to the Legislature to come up with something that works,” Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno) said. “Even if [legislators] don’t agree with term limits, they know it’s what the voters want.”

Gov. Pete Wilson, who would have to call a special election, downplayed the chances of such an election Wednesday, and instead issued a strong endorsement of the lifetime ban.

“Essentially, you could have a speaker of the Assembly leaving for one term and being reelected” after making an agreement that his or her successor would step down after one term, Wilson said.

The ruling affects only legislators, not statewide officeholders such as the governor and the attorney general, who are limited to two four-year terms.

“[Statewide officeholders] could make arguments based on the outcome of this suit, but that would have to be in another lawsuit,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Karen Leaf, who along with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation defended term limits on behalf of California.

The term limits ruling stems from a 1990 initiative, Proposition 140. Voters approved the constitutional amendment 52% to 48%, with a margin of 242,000 votes of 6.6 million cast that year. The measure limits Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms, and bars them from ever seeking their old seats again.

California’s vote in 1990 helped ignite the term limit movement nationally. Now, 20 other states have imposed legislative term limits, and several, including California, approved congressional term limit laws. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down congressional term limits in 1995, but Wilken did not base her ruling on that case.

Of the 21 states that have adopted legislative term limits during the 1990s, only six states other than California imposed lifetime bans. Most state term limit laws permit lawmakers to run again for their old offices after a hiatus of a term or two.

The suit was brought by San Francisco attorney Joseph Remcho on behalf of former Assemblyman Tom Bates (D-Berkeley). Bates, first elected in 1976, was forced from the lower house last year because of term limits.

He was joined by Assemblywoman Martha M. Escutia (D-Bell), who is in her third term, and former Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman (D-North Hollywood), who was forced out in 1996. All three are from districts where a majority of the electorate voted against term limits.

Remcho contended that the ban deprived voters of their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of the number of terms the candidate had served, and deprived lawmakers of what he said was a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment right to serve.

Wilken’s ruling sided with Remcho on virtually every point.

The case is the second major challenge to California’s term limits law. Former Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti asked in 1991 that the state Supreme Court strike down the measure. But the state court affirmed the initiative and held that the lifetime ban was constitutional.

Bates and the other lawmakers brought the new federal suit on separate grounds, homing in on the lifetime ban. Wilken’s ruling contradicts the state Supreme Court ruling.

Wilken noted that one of the state’s own witnesses, called to defend the term limit law, testified that he preferred term limit laws that allow politicians to seek their old offices after they have sat out for a term or two.

“Term limits . . . are not politically neutral,” Wilken wrote. “They are a determination by the majority that one trait, legislative experience, is undesirable and that all voters should be prohibited from voting for candidates possessing that trait.”

Wilken, appointed by President Clinton in 1993, heard the case without a jury in a two-week trial in Oakland.

California’s initiative came at a time when the FBI had embarked on a high-profile investigation of corruption in the Legislature in a case that resulted in 14 convictions and guilty pleas of legislators, lobbyists, staffers and others.

Wilken’s ruling notwithstanding, term limits already have had a major impact on California politics. The initiative brought a new generation of lawmakers to Sacramento, and forced out dozens of veteran legislators, chief among them former Speaker Willie Brown, who dominated Democratic politics in the state for a generation.

In many instances, the veterans have been replaced by newcomers who are experienced in government, having come from the ranks of local government. But for term limits, they would have been forced to wait for years for an Assembly seat to open.

With seniority broken down, particularly in the Assembly, newcomers have ascended quickly, among them Speaker Bustamante, who had been an aide to his predecessor, a term-out lawmaker.

On Wednesday, political consultant Wayne Johnson, who ran the 1990 initiative campaign, said he is aware of at least two term limit initiatives now being drafted. Johnson said the lifetime ban probably would be dropped from any new initiative. The ban was “never really the major point,” he said.

“It was to break the power of incumbency,” Johnson said.

Times staff writers Carl Ingram, Dave Lesher, Max Vanzi and Jenifer Warren contributed to this story.