Court Rejects Bid to Revive Prop. 105 : Initiatives: The ‘truth in advertising’ measure had been overturned on the grounds that it was not limited to a single subject.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday refused to revive the 1988 “truth in advertising” initiative imposing an array of public disclosure requirements on certain products, insurance and ballot campaigns.

The high court, in a brief order issued without dissent, declined to hear a challenge to a February appellate ruling that struck down Proposition 105 as unconstitutional because it was not limited to a single subject.

The appeals court said the initiative’s far-ranging provisions represented “well-intentioned objectives,” but were not “reasonably related” to one another, as required by the single subject rule.

The appellate ruling marked the first time a voter approved initiative had been invalidated on such grounds since the single subject limitation was placed in the state Constitution in 1948.

Proposition 105, approved by 54.5% of the voters in the fall, 1988, election, mandated broader disclosure in areas as diverse as nursing-home safety and California business ties with South Africa.

Although most of its provisions had not been implemented, the measure’s requirement that advertisements for or against initiatives identify major funding sources was imposed and won bipartisan political support during the 1990 election campaigns.

An attorney for sponsors of the measure, Jim Rogers of Oakland, said all of its key provisions are being introduced in the Legislature in the hope of reviving the aims of the proposition. The initiative funding disclosure proposal has been expanded to include all ballot measures.

“It’s clear now how the voters feel about the need for disclosure,” Rogers said. “The politicians like to say they represent the people--and now they’ll get a chance.”

The attorney said also the high court’s action may reflect growing disenchantment with broad-ranging initiatives. “It’s clear the courts are taking a narrower view of the single subject requirement,” he said.

“I think there is resentment against the initiative process--shared by the judiciary--that these measures are too many, too large, too confusing and too problematical,” Rogers said. “Proposition 105, unfortunately, appears to be a victim of this trend.”

In their appeal to the high court, state attorneys defending the measure argued that Proposition 105 was valid because it was built around one consistent aim: providing “pertinent information” about important consumer concerns.

Lawyers for the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Assn., the business group that successfully challenged the measure in court, urged the justices to leave the appellate ruling intact. The initiative, the association said, “blatantly violated” the single subject rule.

Over the years, the state Supreme Court has rejected a series of attempts to invalidate ballot measures on the grounds that they contained more than one subject. In December, for example, the court upheld the wide-ranging provisions of Proposition 115, the criminal justice reform initiative, against claims that it violated the single subject rule. Earlier this month, the court turned down a similar contention made against Proposition 99, the tobacco tax initiative.

Nonetheless, the high court has warned in previous decisions that it would not tolerate measures whose provisions were not “functionally related” or whose subject was “of excessive generality.”

Proposition 105, known as the Public’s Right to Know Act, was offered to the electorate as a means of protecting consumers from “deceptions, half-truths and evasions” in advertising. The measure required that:

* Businesses warn consumers that such toxic household products as paints and solvents should not be dumped in the trash or poured down drains.

* Insurers provide details of so-called “medi-gap” policies that are sold as supplements to government-sponsored medical insurance for the elderly.

* Nursing homes tell consumers how to get information on any health and safety violations.

* Advertisements favoring or opposing a statewide initiative list their major sponsors.

* Corporations selling stock or securities in California reveal whether they do business with South Africa.