EDITORIAL : CHARTER REFORM ADVANCES JUDGE DID VOTERS A FAVOR BY ORDERING INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT.

THERE'S a growing chance that election of a city charter reform commission will be on the April 8 municipal ballot in Los Angeles.

That's because a federal judge ordered the city Thursday to put the proposal on the ballot, and also said that commission members must be elected by districts, not citywide.

But it's still not a sure thing. There could be more foot-dragging by the City Council, which might try to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings by appealing the judge's ruling.

Regardless, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer's decision was a political victory for Mayor Richard Riordan and his allies who favor seeking voter approval for an elected panel to update the overgrown, 71-year-old City Charter - the document that sets forth Los Angeles' governmental organization and powers.

The court ruling was a rebuff to opponents, including some members of the City Council, who hope to prevent or delay an elected charter-reform commission because they fear it will alter the power of the council, which is the governing body of Los Angeles.

The council's love of the status quo is so strong that council President John Ferraro signed the ballot argument against an elected commission - a ballot argument that makes the incredible claim that charter reform should remain in the council's hands because doing it through an elected commission would be ``undemocratic.''

Huh?

Have the opponents forgotten that the elected commission would only propose changes, which in turn would be submitted to the voters for approval? If they sincerely believe that's undemocratic, then they must concede that their own rival plan - a hand-picked charter-reform panel appointed by the council - surely is even more undemocratic.

Of course, they won't admit that. But their Orwellian twisting of language into pretzels of doublespeak is sufficient evidence for them to be laughed out of a court of law, let alone the court of public opinion.

And it reveals a lot about the council's desire to keep power, its inflated ego and its delusion that it is wiser than the voters. Those traits led the council to create a rival commission, once it became apparent that charter reform is unstoppable in the long run.

The council-appointed panel will submit its charter recommendations to the council, which will be able to rewrite them before submitting them to the voters for approval. Now, please refresh our memory: Who's calling whom ``undemocratic'' here?

The appointed panel has members who possess great integrity and expect their suggestions to be submitted to voters eventually. But the council has guaranteed itself a free hand to revise the suggested reforms before voters have a say.

By contrast, the initiative for an elected reform commission - the plan that got the green light from Pfaelzer - is insulated from council meddling. From start to finish, it acknowledges the paramount authority of voters.

Entrenched interests in City Hall may be upset at this turn of events. But that's democracy.