Battle for Term Limit Leverage Starts

As Democrats continued to cheer a federal judge’s decision to gut California’s term limits law, Republican lawmakers jockeyed for political advantage Thursday, vowing to tie any deal that might extend incumbents’ careers to major concessions by Democrats.

Issues that Republicans hope to win concessions on range from welfare and crime legislation to one of longer lasting political significance--drawing legislative boundaries for the decade beginning in 2000.

The stakes in the fight include the political fortunes of several senior Democratic lawmakers, who may be able to extend their reign if the 1990 term limit law is scrapped or modified in a special election, as well as the Legislature’s makeup for years to come.

Although a federal judge overturned term limits, the judge held her decision in abeyance until it can be reviewed by an appellate court, leaving the current term limit law in force.

Democratic lawmakers pressed Gov. Pete Wilson to call for a special statewide election this November on a new term limit measure--one that would reimpose a term limit system, albeit one that is less extreme than the one struck down Wednesday, and would permit incumbents facing forced retirement in 1998 to remain in office.

“To the extent that the governor can call a special election in November 1997, his leverage with the Democratic leadership has increased significantly overnight,” said state Sen. Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga).

Wilson continued Thursday to leave the special election issue hanging, downplaying any possibility that he would take such a step.

“I’m not sure another initiative is really the right answer,” Wilson said, pointing out that the strict term limits approved by voters by initiative in 1990 will remain in effect pending the appeal of Wednesday’s decision, possibly through the 1998 election.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland struck down California’s term limits law, ruling that the 1990 initiative violated the U.S. Constitution by denying voters the right to vote for experienced incumbents and incumbents the right to run for reelection.

Wilken concluded that a lifetime ban prohibiting veteran lawmakers from seeking reelection once they have served their terms violated the 1st and 14th amendments.

The law tossed out by Wilken limited Assembly members to three two-year terms and senators to two four-year terms.

Assembly Democrats are now floating a proposal to offer voters a term limit law that would give Senators three four-year terms and Assembly members six two-year terms.

Wilken, however, left current term limits intact by postponing her decision from taking affect until the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides the case.

Attorneys for the past and present Democratic lawmakers who challenged the 1990 law plan to press for a quick decision in the appellate court.

But so long as Wilken’s ruling remains on hold, Democrats in the Legislature are feeling the greatest urgency to put a new term limits law to a statewide vote.

A look at the numbers shows why. In the state Senate, eight Democrats face forced retirement in 1998, compared to only two Republicans.

“We’re saying term limits [are] still in place, and we have confidence that this aberration of this one lady judge is going to be thrown out and overturned,” said Senate Republican Leader Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove).

But even if the 9th Circuit Court ultimately affirms Wilken’s decision, Hurtt suggested, the GOP would gain by delaying the appeal into 1998 and forcing the eight Democratic incumbents to relinquish their seats.

Among the Democrats who would be forced from office is Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer, the most powerful Democrat in state government.

Lockyer said he spoke to Wilson’s chief of staff shortly after Wilken’s ruling “to start thinking through the array of options,” including a new term limit proposal offered by legislators that could be put before voters on a November special ballot, or perhaps next year.

“It’s important,” said Lockyer, “that we not try to twist this important policy debate into an exercise that looks for partisan advantage.”

Lockyer pointed out that while Republicans may have the upper hand for now, a ruling by the appellate court siding with Wilken would mean that California would have no term limits law.

“Then the roles reverse in some way,” Lockyer said. “Rather than the governor’s assent, the forces for no decision become stronger because there aren’t term limits at all, not even limited ones.”

However, top Republican lawmakers are urging Wilson to link any special election to Democratic concessions on major issues.

“[A special election] is such a big issue,” said Assembly Republican Leader Curt Pringle of Garden Grove, “that I want to make sure they all know downstairs [in the governor’s office] that it is a huge amount of leverage, and it can’t be used or wasted on something of lesser significance.”

Pringle said he spoke to Wilson Wednesday and urged him to use his “leverage,” and “be very cautious with allowing those who oppose term limits to quickly rush through a fix” that would permit incumbents, including himself, to remain in office beyond 1998.

Other Republicans said the governor should link such issues as welfare reform to a special election. Still others want to tie a special election to a bipartisan reapportionment plan for 2000.

“That’s the No. 1 priority,” said a senior Republican official.

In past decades, Democrats dominated reapportionment efforts, drawing boundaries to benefit themselves. Republicans won a lawsuit over the 1990 reapportionment, and probably would press for a reapportionment plan similar to the one now in effect, with boundaries drawn by a bipartisan commission.

“The more complicated the bundle of issues, the more difficult it is to get it done,” Lockyer said of reapportionment.

In the Assembly, Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno) laughed off the possibility of linking a special election to reapportionment, saying, “I’m open to any discussion, but right now, I don’t see the nexus.”

Bustamante, who like Lockyer would be forced to leave office in 1998 if Wilken’s ruling is not affirmed, called the governor’s office after Wilken’s ruling, seeking a meeting of the legislative leaders and Wilson to resolve the “murky situation” of term limits and call a special election.