Prop. R on ballot at least till Oct. 3

Prop. R on ballot at least till Oct. 3
Appeals court to review issue
BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

The bid to give the Los Angeles City Council an extra four-year term is back on the Nov. 7 ballot.
In a surprise reversal, the 2nd District Court of Appeal on Friday overruled a Superior Court judge's order to take Proposition R off the ballot.

The swift decision by the three-judge appellate panel came the same day as a printing deadline for ballot measures, meaning Proposition R will appear on the ballot.

But the measure's fate isn't settled: On Oct. 3, the appellate court will consider whether Proposition R violates the state constitution's requirement that a ballot measure address only one subject.

If the judges decide that Proposition R - which combines term limits and ethics reform - is illegal, they could order county elections officials not to count any votes it receives for or against that measure.

Still, the appellate court decision was at least a temporary win for the City Council and Proposition R proponents, who have argued that the term-limits extension and ethics reforms are a package designed to lessen the influence of lobbyists at City Hall.

"This gives voters a chance to decide for themselves how to keep special interests out of city government," council President Eric Garcetti said in a statement.

Opponents vowed to campaign against Proposition R and said they hold out hope that the court will strike down the measure before Election Day.

"At this point, the key is that the people who are going to vote on this get the information on what this is all about," said Paul Jacob, with the national group U.S. Term Limits, which encouraged the lawsuit challenging Proposition R.

"If the people of Los Angeles realize what this measure contains, I think it will go down in flames."

With Proposition R back on the ballot, Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's office said it intends to appeal an earlier court decision that required the city to change the ballot title so it expressly says the measure would "lengthen" the City Council's term limits.

Nick Velasquez, Delgadillo's spokesman, said the judge should have deferred to the City Council's choice of title, which said the measure would "change" term limits.

Proposition R opponents said they're disappointed that the city attorney would fight the ballot-title ruling.

"Why would they want to appeal the judge saying, you need to make this title clear and understandable? That's like telling the voters, we want to fool you," said Not PropR campaign member Jacque Lamishaw.

With the title language up in the air, city and county elections officials must wait a little longer to finalize the voter guides.

They have until Tuesday to make minor wording changes before ballot information is finalized.

"We're in limbo," City Clerk Frank Martinez said. "Our concern is to make sure we get timely information to the voters."

Some legal scholars said the appellate court made the right decision Friday by letting the measure stay on the ballot.

"The fact that they are setting the court date in early October suggests they intend on ruling before the election," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School and an election law specialist.

There would also be enough time for the loser to appeal to the state Supreme Court before Nov. 7.

If the appellate court decides Proposition R is unconstitutional, it's fairly easy to order elections officials to just not count the votes, Hasen said.

But if the county had been prohibited from printing the voter information guides and ballots without Proposition R - and the appellate court then decided the measure was legal - the county would have had to send out supplemental information and ballots.

The appellate court decision Friday marks another twist in the fight over Proposition R, which would allow City Council members to run for a third four-year term.

The measure would also restrict lobbyists from making campaign contributions, prohibit lobbyists from serving on commissions and institute new reporting requirements for independent expenditures.

The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters presented the package to the City Council in the middle of July, and the council quickly OK'd the measure for the November ballot.

From the beginning, community activists and term-limits supporters have argued that the measure was fast-tracked with little input from neighborhood councils, the public or the Ethics Commission.

They also charged that proponents were trying to mislead the public by packaging an unpopular term-limits extension with popular ethics reforms.

Delgadillo echoed those concerns and warned the City Council there were legal flaws in the measure that could leave the city vulnerable to lawsuits.

On Thursday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien ordered Proposition R off the ballot because he said it violates the state's single-subject rule by combining issues that are not "reasonably related, or germane to each other or to a common theme, purpose or subject."

Delgadillo and attorneys for the League of Women Voters and Chamber of Commerce filed an emergency appeal.

League of Women Voters of Los Angeles President Liza White said she was pleased with the appellate court's decision.

"The measure has always been about the right of Los Angeles voters to decide if there's a better way for them to have their interests represented.

"It's still a day-by-day thing. I'm just very pleased today that we're in the position of knowing it's on the ballot."

kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com

(213) 978-0390