EDITORIAL COUNCIL REBUKED JUDGE STRIKES DOWN MEASURE R'S MISLEADING TITLE; COULD THE MEASURE ITSELF BE NEXT?

MEASURE R, the Los Angeles City Council's deceitful effort to extend its members' terms in office, has suffered its first legal defeat. And we can only hope it will experience its second next week, when a judge will examine the measure's questionable constitutionality.

On Thursday, Superior Court Judge Robert H. O'Brien found that the title the council chose for the November ballot measure, ``Councilmember Limits of Three Terms,'' is misleading.

And with that decision, the council's attempt to trick uninformed voters into thinking Measure R is a pro-term-limits measure has been shot down. O'Brien ordered the city to use a title that reflects what the measure actually does: ``Lengthening Councilmember Term Limits to Three Terms.''

Much better.

O'Brien also struck some unfair language from both pro and con ballot arguments on the measure. Most notably, he excised some of the exaggerated claims that the ``yes'' side tried to make in support of the phony ``ethics-reform'' component that the council stuck into the measure to make it seem less nakedly self-serving than it is.

So far, so good.

But even more galling than the council's deliberately deceptive language is the bundling of the term-limits and ethics provisions into one package. The California Constitution requires that ballot measures deal with one issue at a time -- precisely so that politicians won't try to play this kind of game and so that the will of the public will be better served.

That's why City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo advised the council not to combine the two provisions, and he urged drafting two separate measures. But the council ignored his advice, knowing that no one would vote ``yes'' on a straight-up proposal to keep its members in office for an additional four years.

So now city government finds itself in an odd situation, with Delgadillo forced to defend a ballot proposition that he already admitted may be unconstitutional.

Worse yet, the taxpayers of Los Angeles have to pay the legal bill for this farce: defending the legally indefensible -- all because council members desperately want to hang on to their cushy positions.

Still, should O'Brien strike down the measure next week, the expense will have been worth it. And if for some reason he doesn't, this outrage will give voters one more reason to vote no on Measure R in November.