Reversal by Court Upholds State’s Term Limits Law

SACRAMENTO — A federal appeals court late Friday upheld California’s term limits law, reversing an earlier decision and sending a jolt through the state’s political establishment.

In a 9-2 vote, a special 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that California voters have a constitutional right to limit terms of legislators, and to ban them for life from seeking their old seats once they have served their tenure.

The majority ruling, issued in a surprisingly brief 10-page opinion, means that term limits probably will be in place in the 1998 election, although lawmakers challenging the law will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If, as expected, the decision stands, more than two dozen state legislators will be forced from office next year, including the leaders of both houses--Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante and Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer.

In a ripple effect, many legislators will run for statewide office or other seats.

Bustamante said he expects the ruling to stand, adding that he intends to remain speaker for 1998--and “make it the most productive year of my career.”

“It has had its full review process, its day in court. A decision has been made,” Bustamante said. “I don’t see a real opportunity that the Supreme Court will hear the case.”

Although the decision came on a 9-2 vote, four judges wrote separate concurring opinions, each saying they reached the same conclusion but for different reasons.

The majority, led by Judge David Thompson, concluded that limits placed on voting rights by the 1990 initiative, Proposition 140, were “not severe.” The law limits Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms.

The court rejected opponents’ arguments that legislative term limits should be overturned because the key lifetime ban provision was unconstitutional.

“California voters apparently perceived lifetime term limits for elected state officials as a means to promote democracy by opening up the political process and restoring competitive elections,” Thompson wrote. “This was their choice to make.”

The special panel’s ruling reverses an opinion issued in October by a three-judge panel of the appellate court that struck down term limits, and for a time heartened veteran lawmakers who thought they could run again in 1998. But backers of term limits petitioned for a rehearing, which was granted, resulting in Friday’s decision.

The earlier opinion concluded that voters were not explicitly informed of the implications of the 1990 initiative, specifically that it included the lifetime ban--a contention rejected by the latest decision.

California is one of seven states that bar so-called termed-out lawmakers from ever running again. Most states that have term limits allow state politicians to seek election after they have sat out a term.

Attorney Joe Remcho, representing lawmakers challenging the law, said he plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block term limits for the 1998 election. “We remain committed to the proposition that term limits are unconstitutional, and we intend to appeal,” Remcho said Friday night.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled whether states can limit legislative terms, although the justices in 1995 struck down congressional term limit laws imposed by several states, including California. The high court held in that case that states could not set qualifications for federal office.

The San Francisco-based Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming term limits for state lawmakers immediately was hailed by term limit backers, including Secretary of State Bill Jones, the state’s main elections officer. He proclaimed that “the will of the people will be in effect” for the 1998 election year.

“This is a great day for the public and a great day for the process of politics and government,” Jones said.

“It means,” added Deborah J. La Fetra of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which also defended term limits, “that the people’s votes have meaning, and that California will reap the benefits of term limits for years and years to come.”

Gov. Pete Wilson also lauded the decision, saying, “The fresh talent and new ideas that have come to Sacramento due to term limits have made politicians more accountable to the people.”

Voters approved Proposition 140, a constitutional amendment, by 52% to 48%, with a margin of 242,000 votes of the 6.6 million cast in that election. The initiative came at a time when the FBI had opened a major corruption investigation at the Capitol, and when incumbents led by then-Speaker Willie Brown almost always won reelection.

In upholding term limits, the majority cited proponents’ main argument in favor of term limits--that it weakens incumbency and opens up the political system.

“Long-term entrenched legislators may obtain excessive power, which in turn may discourage other qualified candidates from running for office, or may provide the incumbent with an unfair advantage in winning reelection,” the majority noted.

Dissenting Judge Betty Fletcher, joined by Judge Harry Pregerson, referred to the brevity of the majority opinion and wrote, “From reading their opinion, one might conclude . . . that the majority did not appreciate either the gravity or the closeness of the issues upon which they were called to deliberate.”

“At a minimum,” Fletcher wrote, “I suggest that the majority should recognize that what it does today is to validate an experiment that may not prove out.”

With 26 legislators facing forced retirement next year, the ruling will have a dramatic effect on the 1998 election.

“Now and for the foreseeable future, the California Legislature will be in a state of constant transition,” Lockyer said.

The ruling affects only legislative terms, not portions of the 1990 initiative that limit statewide office holders such as governor and attorney general to two four-year terms.

Times staff writers Maria La Ganga in San Francisco and Jenifer Warren, Dave Lesher and Carl Ingram in Sacramento contributed to this report.