Members of Congress should listen to the people.

Well, I am pleased to report it's happened once again! American voters--this time Californians--have shot down three phony "tort reform" initiatives that, if passed, would have let wrongdoers get away with their misconduct.

California's vote on March 26 (the Republican Party's presidential primary) marks the 13th time that a so-called tort reform initiative has been put on a statewide ballot. It also marks the 13th time that voters of all political persuasions have defeated attempts to roll back citizens' legal rights.

The votes in California and in other states in past years reiterate the point that opposition to these hackneyed "tort reform" proposals cuts across the political spectrum. Tort law is not a Democratic or Republican issue, nor a conservative or liberal one. Our liability laws and our civil justice system make sure that wrongdoers are held accountable and do not get away with harmful conduct. And voters have repeatedly stated that they want it to stay that way.

In 1994, Arizona voters easily defeated two initiatives, including one that would have permitted the legislature to enact damages caps and restrictions on the right to trial by jury. In that same year, Arizonans voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. Also in 1994, voters in Michigan favored Republican candidates and crushed a proposal that would have limited auto insurance medical benefits. In 1992, Michigan citizens had defeated a similar proposal.

In 1990, Arizonans defeated two propositions. One would have permitted limits on the right to hold wrongdoers accountable in court, and the other would have permitted consumers to opt into a no-fault liability system in lawsuits involving automobiles.

In 1988, Californians defeated three propositions, including caps on contingent fees and a proposal to establish a no-fault automobile system. Also in 1988, Florida voters rejected an arbitrary cap on noneconomic damages for permanent injury in all tort cases.

California's most recent vote was a stunning rebuke to the big corporations, Silicon Valley tycoons, and insurance companies that spent nearly $11.5 million trying to act Californians to pass these measures. The latest proposals would have--

* established a pure no-fault automobile system in the state. It was defeated 65 percent to 35 percent.

* required consumers who sue for investment fraud to pay the defendants' legal fees. This proposal was defeated 59.5 percent to 40.5 percent.

* imposed caps on the contingent fees paid by injured citizens to their attorneys while permitting defendants to spend unlimited sums for legal representation. This initiative was defeated 51 percent to 49 percent.

The big business proponents of these initiatives clearly need to take a remedial civics lesson. After the vote, Thomas Proulx, a cofounder of the software maker Intuit, Inc., and chairman of the campaign pushing these anticonsumer measures, was quoted as saying, "I'm really disappointed in seeing how democracy works in America."

Fortunately, the American people understand precisely how democracy works and that their voice--whether it's in the voting booth or in the jury box counts. For more than 200 years, this country has permitted citizens in the states to determine public policy issues such as tort law, preserving a healthy respect for the delicate balance between states' rights and the will of the federal government.

But, ironically, even as California voters turned back these initiatives, politicians in the nation's capital were ignoring this message and trying to supersede the judgment of citizens in the states. The current legislative challenges in Washington are unprecedented and, given the outcome of these state ballot propositions, represent a clear disconnect with the wishes of American voters.

After contentious battles in the House and Senate, Congress passed an anticonsumer products liability bill in March that President Clinton has vowed to veto. The president and congressional members of both parties who voted against this dangerous legislation should be commended for standing up for the American consumer.

In addition, draconian preemptive changes to state medical malpractice laws--including caps on damages--were made part of the House health care bill that passed in late March. A Senate fight on these provisions is imminent.

Finally, legislation approved in the House and now pending in the Senate would restrict the rights of people injured in rail accidents. A second bill, which is moving to conference, proposes to eliminate the rights of injured seamen.

Every one of us has a duty to our profession and our clients to make sure that members of Congress understand how voters feel about these bills.

The message from California could not be more clear: Citizens of all political persuasions shun measures that would strip away their rights. Isn't it time that Congress started to listen to the voters?