COURT UPHOLDS CITY COUNCIL'S BALLOT LANGUAGE PROP. R OPPONENTS DEALT SETBACK BY APPEALS PANEL.

Byline: KERRY CAVANAUGH Staff Writer

A measure on the November ballot that would give City Council members an extra term does not specifically have to say it ``lengthens'' their terms, an appellate court ruled late Tuesday.

The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal overrules an earlier Los Angeles Superior Court decision that said the ballot language written by the council was too vague because it said Proposition R would ``change'' term limits.

In its decision Tuesday, the three-judge panel said the ballot language could have been ``more complete, and thus more informative, by noting the measure increased the number of terms a council member could serve from two to three.''

But because the title and ballot language aren't false, misleading or partial, the panel decided not to change them.

``To comply with the election statutes, the ballot title need not be the `most accurate,' `most comprehensive,' or `fairest' that a skilled wordsmith might imagine,'' the judges wrote in their opinion.

``The title need only contain words that are neither false, misleading, nor partial. The title adopted by the City Council meets that standard, and the judiciary is not free to substitute its judgment given its deferential standard of review.''

Jeff Jacobberger, an attorney and member of the Not PropR campaign, said he was disappointed .

``The court opinion says the question could be more complete and informative, but the City Council chose not to be more complete and informative with voters,'' he said.

Proposition R opponents have argued that the ballot measure packages popular campaign finance and lobbyist reforms with a term limits extension to help the unpopular term limits item pass with voters. And the ballot title was changed to obscure the lengthening of term limits, they argue.

Supporters of the measure have said the term limit extension and ethics reform are a package designed to lessen the influence of lobbyists at City Hall.

The original ballot language drafted by City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's office had specifically said that Proposition R would lengthen term limits to three terms, however the council rewrote the language to say the measure would ``change council member term limits to three terms.''

Despite early opposition, Delgadillo's office is now representing the city in court and has argued that the court should defer to the council's choice of language.

``The appellate court followed the law and afforded the appropriate deference to the council-adopted title,'' said Nick Velasquez, spokesman for Delgadillo. ``The court agreed with our position that the language meets the legal standard.''

The decision Tuesday was also the second major setback in a week for Proposition R opponents.

On Thursday, Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien ordered the measure off the November ballot because it violated the state constitution's single-subject rule by combining more than one issue -- ethics reform and a term limits extension -- in a ballot measure.

The next day, the appellate court ordered Proposition R back on the ballot. The higher court could still rule the measure is illegal, in which case county election officials could be ordered to not count the votes.

kerry.cavanaugh(at)dailynews.com

[phone]