State Vows Fight After High Court Rejects Bid to Revive Term Limits

In a procedural step, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an initial effort to reinstate California’s term limits law, prompting Secretary of State Bill Jones to announce that he will file a new appeal within a week.

Jones last month filed the appeal rejected by the high court Tuesday. But that rejection, issued in a one-line order, did not preclude Jones from filing a new appeal.

Of more immediate concern for lawmakers facing forced retirement, Jones said he will ask the high court to issue a stay blocking last week’s controversial ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down the 1990 term limits initiative.

When it issued its ruling, the appellate court delayed its decision from taking effect until Oct. 28, giving time for an appeal. Jones will ask the high court to act quickly to extend that stay and leave it in place at least until the court decides whether to review the full case.

“The stay is really the issue,” Jones said, adding that if the high court grants the stay blocking the lower court ruling from taking effect, term limits would remain in place and 27 veteran lawmakers would be unable to seek reelection.

“My goal is to keep the public’s will [supporting term limits] in effect, period,” said Jones, the state’s top elections official. “The stay is the process by which that may take place.”

Attorney Joe Remcho, representing current and former lawmakers who oppose term limits, agreed that the initial battle will be over whether the high court decides to block the lower court ruling from taking effect.

“All the action is going to be on the stay,” Remcho said. “In the next few weeks, we’ll have a pretty good idea of what’s going to be happening in 1998.”

The list of lawmakers facing forced ouster next year includes the most powerful Democrat in Sacramento, Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), along with Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno).

Some lawmakers probably will run for statewide office if they cannot return to the Legislature, while some Assembly Democrats are contemplating running against one another for state Senate seats.

State law requires that lawmakers formally announce their candidacies by the first week in February. Jones predicted that the high court will decide by January whether to take the case, but probably will not decide the legality of the term limits law until summer.

Jones described it as “urgent” that the high court resolve the guts of the case, pointing out that the 9th Circuit ruling striking down term limits conflicts with a 1991 state Supreme Court decision affirming the law.

Jones said the contradictory rulings threaten to plunge him into an election year morass. Any decision he makes to accept or reject candidacy papers could result in state and federal lawsuits against him.

He said he risks being “enjoined by one court or the other, or both simultaneously, on the part of people who are in, or out, or can’t run, or could run.”

“It’s an untenable position and only can be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.

California voters approved Proposition 140 in 1990, limiting Assembly members to three two-year terms and senators to two four-year terms.

The 9th Circuit struck down term limits, concluding that voters were not explicitly told that the initiative barred lawmakers for life from seeking their old seats.

Before the appellate court issued its ruling, Jones filed the appeal that was rejected Tuesday. He explained that he submitted the unusual petition hoping to accelerate the 9th Circuit’s decision.

The case stems from a federal suit brought by former Assemblyman Tom Bates (D-Berkeley), who was forced from office last year. Joining Bates were ex-Assemblywoman Barbara Friedman (D-North Hollywood) and Assemblywoman Martha Escutia (D-Bell), who would be “termed out” in 1998.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in April that the measure was unconstitutional because it imposed a lifetime ban barring former legislators from ever seeking their old seats.

The appellate court did not decide the constitutionality of a lifetime ban, finding instead that voters did not understand they were imposing such a ban--a conclusion Jones called “a gross misunderstanding of the people of California.”

*

Times staff writer David Savage contributed from Washington.