Forsaken 5 Compete for Favor of Voters

SACRAMENTO —  Five of the nine propositions on the June ballot are attracting scant notice, what with the rising din over hot-button initiatives attacking bilingual education practices and union political muscle.

But voters take note: To some degree, your courts, your judges and your crime laws are at stake in the outcome of the lowly five.

There is even one--Proposition 225, which would force politicians to support term limits for members of Congress--whose so-called proponents are all but calling for the defeat of their own measure.

Sally Reed Impastato, a board director of the group U.S. Term Limits, tells voters in the official ballot pamphlet: “Passage of this measure will likely result only in needless and costly litigation.”

The legal snarl centers on language in Proposition 225 that recommends passage of a U.S. constitutional amendment limiting House members to six years in office and U.S. senators to 12 years. It also would require all federal and state candidates for legislative office to declare their support for such limits--or be identified publicly as “disregard[ing] voters’ instructions on term limits.”

States cannot bring that kind of pressure, even indirectly, on federal elected officials, the courts have ruled.

But those rulings came before proponents of the present measure first tried to qualify such an initiative in 1996. Now, since it’s clear that the measure could never pass judicial muster but is on the June ballot anyway, voters are faced with a “meaningless election,” Impastato said.

Proponents said they have not given up the fight for congressional term limits and will try, probably in 2000, to qualify an initiative more likely to be upheld in the courts.

Other low-wattage measures:

* Proposition 219 would make future ballot propositions apply uniformly across the state, regardless of the outcome county by county. Counties and other local areas could not be penalized just because their vote went against a proposition that passed statewide.

That almost happened in 1993, when an initiative was approved that made permanent a temporary half-cent sales tax to raise funds for added police protection. Drafters wrote the measure so that the only counties to receive extra police funds would be those where the local vote went in favor of the initiative, or if the county board of supervisors voiced support.

The supervisor caveat saved 19 counties where the state ballot measure failed.

Had that not happened, it would have been “ballot box blackmail,” argue Proposition 219 supporters. They warn that voters could be philosophically against a ballot measure but be coerced into voting for it anyway to avoid being selectively penalized.

Passage of Proposition 219, backers say, would assure that this could not happen.

* Proposition 220 would give judges an option to unify their courts, allowing Municipal Court judges to become Superior Court judges, thus increasing the number of judges hearing major civil and criminal cases.

An election by the judges in each county would determine unification.

(Any conflict with Proposition 219 because of the county-by-county option would probably be resolved by the courts, state election officials said).

California’s 1994 three-strikes sentencing law brought defendants pouring into courtrooms asking for jury trials as their only hope for beating a life-sentence rap, the argument for Proposition 220 goes. Thus, the creation of more Superior Court judges would ease the burden, proponents say.

But the facts are in dispute.

Proponents declare in their ballot pamphlet arguments that jury trial requests have risen “more than 600% in Los Angeles alone.”

Not so, said spokeswoman Jerrianne Hayslett of the county’s Superior Court system. Through efficiencies that have streamlined the system, the backlog of three-strikes cases in Los Angeles is now virtually zero, she said. “That 600% figure is not accurate” by a long shot, she added.

Among Los Angeles judges, some worry that passage of Proposition 220 would invite voting-rights lawsuits that the county would be hard-pressed to win.

Municipal Court judges are elected by voters within judicial districts; Superior Court judges are elected countywide, both for six-year terms, noted Superior Court Judge Michael Farrell in Van Nuys.

To wipe out the Municipal Court system would be to deny, for example, minority communities within judicial districts the ability to elect judges of their choice, he said.

“It would be loss of local control,” Farrell said, in places like East Los Angeles and Compton that might favor the election of minority judges.

Proposition 220, if passed, “may work in small counties,” Farrell said. But in Los Angeles County, where a third of all the state’s judges preside, passage would mean “one big administrative nightmare” engulfing about 400 judges, he said.

Other Los Angeles County judges disagree. Superior Court Judge Michael S. Luros, who presides in Lancaster, approves of Proposition 220. “Consolidation [of Municipal and Superior courts] is the coming thing,” he said. “Municipal Court judges are just as qualified” to hear major cases as Superior Court judges, he said.

* Under Proposition 221, questionable performances by the court system’s low-level adjudicators--court commissioners and court referees--would be scrutinized by the same watchdog agency that reviews the actions of full-fledged judges.

Court commissioners and referees are employed by trial courts to hear such cases as divorces, traffic violations and small claims, but in fact are called upon to sit in judgment of major crimes in Los Angeles County, according to a Southland judge who asked not to be identified.

Performance reviews by the state Commission on Judicial Performance are easily justified, proponents say, by such “horror stories” as drug-addicted parents and sex offender fathers receiving custody of children in commissioner courts.

* Proposition 222 would eliminate any possibility for second-degree murderers of police officers to be released from prison and would not allow any convicted murderer to get a reduced sentence by earning prison credits for work or good behavior.

Placed on the ballot legislatively through the efforts of a tough former prosecutor, Assemblyman Rod Pacheco (R-Riverside), Proposition 222 is required to “close a loophole” in a ballot measure passed by voters 20 years ago, proponents said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Ballot Measures

These are five of the lower-profile initiatives on the June ballot:

PROPOSITION 219

Would prohibit ballot measures that apply the effects of the initiatives differently in different locales.

Supporters: State Sen. John R. Lewis (R-Orange); Matthew E. Webb, Western Valleys Group of Riverside County

Opponents: Assemblywoman Diane Martinez (D-Monterey Park); 14 other Assembly Democrats and one state senator who voted against the proposal in the Legislature

****

PROPOSITION 220

Would join the state’s Municipal courts to the Superior Court system in counties where a majority of judges vote their approval. Would raise the $98,000-a-year salary of Municipal Court judges to the Superior Court judge level of $107,000.

Supporters: State Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), a candidate for California attorney general; Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.; Charles Byrd, president of the California State Sheriffs’ Assn.; California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter; James Fox, San Mateo County district attorney; Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles)

Opponents: Mike Reynolds, author of the three-strikes sentencing law; Lewis K. Uhler, president, National Tax Limitation Committee; Edward Jagels, Kern County district attorney; some judges

****

PROPOSITION 221

Would create new performance oversight panel for court referees and court commissioners, who preside over a variety of cases.

Supporters: State Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Carnelian Bay); Kate Killeen, president, Women Prosecutors of California; George Kennedy, president, California District Attorneys Assn.

Opponents: California Court Commissioners Assn., which raised objections when the proposal was before the Legislature

****

PROPOSITION 222

Would impose life sentences without parole on people convicted of second-degree murder of law enforcement officers. Also would end time off for good behavior or work credits for convicted murderers.

Supporters: Gov. Pete Wilson; Assemblyman Rod Pacheco (R-Riverside); state Sen. John R. Lewis (R-Orange)

Opponents: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

****

PROPOSITION 225

Would urge Congress to pursue amending the U.S. Constitution to allow limits for congressional terms. Would require candidates for legislative office to declare support for such limits or be identified publicly for their opposition or refusal to take a stand.

Supporters: Sally Reed Impastato, board member, U.S. Term Limits. But she and her pro-term-limits group are advising voters that the measure would not survive court challenges.

Opponents: Mark Whisler, president, Sacramento City Taxpayers Rights League.