COURT DECLINES TO RULE ON TERM-LIMITS LEGALITY UNTIL AFTER NOV. 7 VOTE.

Byline: KERRY CAVANAUGH Staff Writer

A state appellate court ruled late Friday that it will not decide the legality of Proposition R until after the Nov. 7 election, clearing the way for Los Angeles voters to decide whether to give City Council members an additional term in office.

The ruling marked a significant victory for supporters who have fought to keep the measure alive despite questions about its constitutionality.

``I'm very happy that the voters will be able to look at this measure and be able to vote. And we have every confidence they'll be able to find it a good measure and something they'll want to support,'' said Liza White, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the League of Women Voters, which co-sponsored Proposition R with the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Friday's decision caught many by surprise since the 2nd District Court of Appeal was supposed to hear arguments Tuesday about the challenge to Proposition R.

Opponents have argued that the measure violates the California Constitution by combining two issues -- term limits and ethics reform -- in a single ballot measure.

With a hearing scheduled just one month before the election, the court could have ruled the measure unconstitutional and ordered any votes that might have been cast not to be counted.

But the statement issued Friday said it would be inappropriate to rule on the legality of the measure before the election.

Generally, courts prefer to leave initiatives on the ballot for voters to decide: If voters reject the initiative, the challenge is moot. If they approve it, the courts can then consider the legality of the issue.

California courts have overturned voter-passed initiatives before.

Proposition 187, which would have prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving public services, was approved by voters but struck down by the court.

``The court will typically wait until the election has occurred in the interest of maintaining the will of the people,'' said Nick Velasquez, spokesman for City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, whose office urged the court to cancel the pre-election challenge.

Likewise, attorney Charles Bell, who is representing West Los Angeles resident Neal Donner in the Proposition R challenge, said he wasn't really surprised by the court's decision.

He still believes, however, that the court could have considered the legal questions before the election.

``We still think it's a single-subject problem and a serious one,'' Bell said. ``If voters understand it's really lengthening term limits, at least the data suggests that people are not likely to support that.''

Proposition R supporters and opponents said the court's decision Friday doesn't alter their plans to campaign hard in advance of the election.

``We have always agreed that voters should have the opportunity to reject this measure and now they will have the ability to do that,'' said Jason Lyon, with the Not PropR campaign organized by some neighborhood council activists.

``But it would have been nice to give the voters clarity that it's a legal measure before they have to vote.''

All elected city officials are now limited to two four-year terms. Proposition R would allow council members to run for a third term.

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

Proposition was proposed by the Los Angeles chamber and the League of Women Voters, who have been considering changing term limits for several years. They presented the package to the City Council in mid-July, and the council fast-tracked the measure for the ballot.

A spokesman for City Council President Eric Garcetti, who has championed the measure, did not return a call late Friday.

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

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

Supporters, though, argue that Proposition R is a package deal aimed at reducing the influence of lobbyists at City Hall.

kerry.cavanaugh(at)dailynews.com

[phone]