TERM-LIMITS INITIATIVE QUALIFIES OPPONENTS CRY FOUL AFTER 4 COUNTIES REVISE SIGNATURE TALLIES.

Byline: STEVEN HARMON

MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO -- The secretary of state announced Tuesday that the initiative to loosen term limits has qualified for the Feb. 5 ballot, but only after four counties took the unusual step of revising their signature counts.

Those revised numbers allowed supporters to narrowly avoid what could have been a disastrous full count of the more than 1.1 million signatures turned in by proponents -- and left opponents crying foul.

The number of valid signatures is actually a projection based on county counts of smaller random samples. The secretary of state's projection was 764,747 valid signatures -- 957 more than required to get on the ballot without going through a time-consuming full count.

But opponents of the measure immediately accused supporters of pressuring counties to revise their signature counts to ensure it made it to the ballot.

Four counties last week removed five duplicate signatures they'd previously counted. That alone changed the percentage of valid signatures enough to increase the overall projected number of valid signatures by 5,490.

"We've been getting calls from people whose livelihood is at stake, saying that pressure is being brought to bear to come up with enough signatures," said Kevin Spillane, a spokesman for the California Term Limits Defense Fund. "The results speak for themselves. These revisions are unprecedented and dramatic and very suspicious. We believe the process has been compromised and the integrity of the electoral system is at issue."

The group said it was considering legal options, including asking Secretary of State Debra Bowen to block the measure from the ballot.

Contra Costa, Alameda, Riverside and San Bernardino counties all found incorrect duplicates in their count of signatures.

Steve Weir, the registrar clerk for Contra Costa County, denied he'd been pressured to change his signature count.

Weir said he was contacted by the proponents' attorney, Robin Johansen, alerting him to a potential mistake on the invalid signatures.

"But, there was no pressure," Weir said. "Anybody can call and make an inquiry. We don't typically get these calls, but it's rare that it's this close."

The issue in Contra Costa County was a voter who'd signed the petitions twice -- once when he was registered and once after he registered to vote. The county's signature-count system mistakenly counted the voter twice as invalid, a problem Weir said is typical in what he called a "flawed" system.

"We know our system doesn't log duplicates correctly," Weir said. "It's in our internal process to check duplicates. We didn't. We should have caught it earlier. This wasn't mining or farming for wrong duplicates."

That said, Nicole Winger, spokeswoman for the Secretary of State's Office, said it is unusual for counties to revise their numbers. She also said the Election Code does not address whether proponents can communicate with election officials.

A spokesman for the measure would not comment on the accusation that election officials were pressured in what is just the latest chapter in what has become a campaign dripping in suspicion and accusation.

Critics have hammered proponents for writing the proposal to prolong the careers of the two legislative leaders -- Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. They've also accused supporters of false advertising by emphasizing that legislators' time in office would be reduced from 14 to 12 years when, in fact, 12 years would represent an increase in time for most legislators.

Currently, members can serve up to 14 years, but are limited to six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate. Because there are twice as many Assembly seats as Senate seats, most Assembly members don't serve more than six years in the Legislature.

sharmon(at)cctimes.com

[phone]