Legislators Treading Uncertain Political Terrain

The court decision overturning California term limits set the political world spinning Wednesday, throwing state lawmakers for a loop--even though the decision had little immediate impact because of a pending appeal. But it struck closer to the hearts of politicians whose lives had already been unalterably changed by the voters’ 1990 edict putting a time limit on government service.

“Well, it’s a great decision for California,” said a soft-spoken David Roberti, who was forced from leadership of the state Senate in 1994. Then he chuckled, and sighed.

“I can’t help but feel a little wistful. This would have been nice about two or three years ago.”

Roberti and former Assembly Speaker Willie L. Brown Jr.--now the mayor of San Francisco--were the lightning rods who helped propel proponents of term limits toward victory. Those tired of the duo’s dominance of Sacramento took glee in persuading voters that term limits would forever bury the power barons.

Given a potential resurrection by the court, however, neither Roberti nor Brown were planning a return to Sacramento.

“Nope,” Brown told reporters in San Francisco. “I’m home.”

Maybe Brown knew exactly where he wanted to be, but the terrain was much less secure for others. If the intention of voters passing term limits was to inflict uncertainty and discomfort on state politicians, they certainly accomplished that goal.

Legislators who were “termed out” had in some cases been laying the groundwork for 1998 statewide campaigns for months. They looked toward raising money beginning in June, one year before the primary.

Now a federal judge has thrown out term limits, but blocked enforcement of her own decision pending an appeal. As a result, would-be candidates--among them the two most powerful lawmakers in the Legislature--are treading water, uncertain whether to run for a new office or seek reelection.

“It throws a lot of confusion out there for candidates,” said Bruce Cain, head of the government studies department at UC Berkeley and an opponent of Proposition 140, the term limits initiative.

Mark Petracca, a UC Irvine professor who testified as the state’s expert witness in favor of Proposition 140, agreed that any legislator facing term-limited extinction may face a tough call: “Would you want to bet on the appellate court and Supreme Court upholding [the court] ruling? There’s going to be a great deal of contemplation and reflection.”

On Wednesday morning, for example, state Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer was staring term limits in the face and plotting a bid for state attorney general in 1998.

By afternoon, Lockyer was weighing the possibility of staying in his power base in the Senate if the appeals court upholds the federal court ruling.

“Today’s decision does not immediately affect any possible plans I may have for future elections,” he said in the statement. “Until and unless there is a definitive appellate decision, I cannot presume that I can legally seek another term in the Senate.”

More immediately, lame-duck Speaker Cruz Bustamante was instantly transformed into a not necessarily lame-duck speaker, with all the attendant power and perils. Bustamante is serving his third term, but could get a reprieve if Wednesday’s ruling stands.

“A lot of people voted for this guy thinking he’d be a transitional figure, two years and out,” Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst, said of Bustamante. “Now, if the ruling is upheld, this guy could be in the speakership forever. The intracaucus infighting that could break out is breathtaking.”

Bustamante seemed, like everyone else, slightly bewildered by Wednesday’s turn of events. He said he would like to run for the Assembly again, if he can.

Bustamante said that he will urge Gov. Pete Wilson to call a meeting of legislative leaders to hammer out a compromise term-limits measure that could be placed on a special election ballot in November.

“The longer that this thing goes on without clarification, the muddier it would be,” Bustamante said.

This is the most recent court decision to throw a wrench into the political works. In the fall of 1990, a federal court judge threw out the state’s campaign finance law, allowing candidates to haul in loads of cash. The ruling virtually resurrected Democrat Dianne Feinstein’s campaign for governor, though not enough to allow her to defeat Wilson.

Proposition 187, 1994’s initiative blocking services to illegal immigrants, was largely tossed out by the courts, and legal challenges are ongoing against two 1996 measures, the open primary law and another campaign finance initiative.

State Democratic party chief Art Torres said the fits and starts illustrated the difficulties of living with the system of legislating by ballot that its author could not have foretold.

“The lesson is that Hiram Johnson never anticipated that the initiative process could create a very unsettling situation,” he said. “We need to be much more reflective of what goes onto the ballot.”