home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
CD-ROM Aktief 1995 #3
/
CDA3.iso
/
survival
/
xroberti.zip
/
R16
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-02-22
|
4KB
|
65 lines
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
Copyright 1991, San Jose Mercury News
DATE: Thursday, January 17, 1991
PAGE: 1C EDITION: Morning Final
SECTION: California News LENGTH: 16 in. Medium
SOURCE: By THOMAS FARRAGHER, Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
DATELINE: Sacramento
MEMO: California News.
LAWMAKERS OK SUIT TO VOID PROP. 140
SENATE PANEL ACTS; ASSEMBLY EXPECTED TO JOIN
A powerful legislative committee, arguing that Proposition 140 knocks a
delicate balance of power out of whack, voted unanimously Wednesday to file a
lawsuit challenging the measure that caps lawmakers' terms, slashes their
budgets and cuts their pensions.
''I feel the law is unconstitutional, and I think the court will find
that,'' said Senate President Pro Tem David*Roberti,* D-Los Angeles, whose
rules committee approved the suit on a 5-0 vote.
The Assembly Rules Committee is expected to vote today to join the suit,
a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown said. The suit could be filed
in Superior Court in Sacramento within two weeks.
Lee Phelps of Aptos, who helped write Proposition 140, said, ''This is an
outrageous abuse of office, because lawmakers have taken an oath to uphold
the Constitution of the state of California, and Proposition 140 is now part
of the Constitution. We're fully confident that Proposition 140 will
withstand any effort to challenge its provisions.''
*Roberti*said no public money will be spent to overturn the measure. Legal
fees would come from unspecified private sources or campaign funds. They are
expected to be measured in six figures.
Phelps said the Pacific Legal Foundation has agreed to defend Proposition
140, financed by private*contributions.*
The lawmakers will base their argument on the principle that Proposition
140, approved by voters last fall, tilts the balance of power toward the
executive branch. They argue that the Legislature is being forced to do
business without sufficient resources.
''Our abilities to represent our constituencies are seriously
eroded,''*Roberti*said.
Joseph Remcho, a San Francisco lawyer who will plead the lawmakers' case,
said a recent state Supreme Court decision invalidating parts of Proposition
115, the so-called speedy trial initiative, bolsters the Legislature's
chances of voiding the term limit initiative.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court said fundamental changes to the
Constitution can be placed before voters only by the Legislature or a
constitutional convention. Remcho said the Supreme Court ultimately will
decide Proposition 140's fate with that logic, too.
He said the suit will name Secretary of State March Fong Eu and state
Controller Gray Davis as defendants. He said he would ask the Superior Court
judge who hears the case to act within two months, so the case can go to the
appeals courts.
Remcho said Proposition 140 budget cuts, by cutting legislative staffs
and office budgets, ''has a profound effect on the ability to deal with
everybody else roaming the halls here, people like me.''
Senate Minority Leader Ken Maddy, R-Fresno, said, ''I don't think this is
what the people intended when they voted. I don't think they want to cripple
this (Senate).''
Phelps said, ''I think the over 3 million people who voted yes on
Proposition 140 are justifiably going to be outraged.''
KEYWORDS: CALIFORNIA CONGRESS LAWSUIT
..... EMPLOYMENT END BUDGET DECREASE LEGISLATION
END OF DOCUMENT.