Prop. 140 Squeeze Has Lawmakers Squirming : Politics: State high court’s approval of term-limits initiative will force many officeholders to retire or make risky runs for higher office.

South Bay Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr. had some blunt advice for his staff last week after hearing that the state Supreme Court had upheld term limits for state elected officials.

“I told them to get their resumes ready,” said Tucker (D-Inglewood), noting that the limit law will likely force him to make a high-risk run for higher office. “I don’t want to leave them in the lurch.”

Like other South Bay lawmakers, Tucker faces a major crimp in his career plans now that California’s high court has ruled in favor of Proposition 140. The measure, approved by 52% of the voters last year, requires current Assembly members to surrender their seats in 1996 and current state senators to bow out in 1996 or 1998, depending on when they last faced election.

The ban is for life: Lawmakers may never again run for the same office after reaching their term limits. That means that in the coming years, California’s political scene likely will be clogged with assemblymen and state senators seeking other posts.

At the same time, Proposition 140 will be a bonanza for local officials and would-be politicians eager to compete for open state legislative seats. In the South Bay, there is no shortage of potential candidates.

“Obviously, this is a plus,” said Redondo Beach Mayor Brad Parton, a 31-year-old Republican interested in running for higher office. “Incumbents are hard to beat.”

Said Los Angeles school board President Warren Furutani, a 44 year-old Gardena Democrat also looking to ascend the political ladder: “Needless to say, this is going to make the situation fluid. It’s going to be very interesting.”

Proposition 140 limits Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators and statewide elected officials to two four-year terms. The measure applies to officials elected or reelected on Nov. 6, 1990, or later. State senators who won four-year terms in 1988, however, would be allowed to stand for election only once more.

For incumbents, Proposition 140 adds to the uncertainties already being raised by reapportionment, a once-a-decade redrawing of legislative districts that will be completed in time for next year’s elections.

The reapportionment process, now in the hands of the state Supreme Court, could pull the political rug out from under some South Bay lawmakers if their districts are carved up and made part of the turf of neighboring incumbents.

A Democratic-backed plan vetoed last month by Gov. Pete Wilson, for instance, would have wiped out the district of state Sen. Ralph Dills, an 81-year-old Gardena Democrat who spent a decade in the Assembly and has now served a quarter century in the Senate.

For lawmakers who survive reapportionment, Proposition 140 presents a more definite, albeit distant problem.

Three South Bay incumbents say they have decided to return to private life when they reach their term limits, assuming they win reelection in the interim. They are Sen. Robert Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach) and Assemblymen Richard Floyd (D-Carson) and Gerald Felando (R-San Pedro).

“I had thought I might only serve one more term anyway,” said Beverly, who is up for reelection next year and thus faces his term limit in 1996. “Now, the decision is made for me.” Beverly, 66, has been in the Senate since 1976 and served in the Assembly the previous 10 years.

Felando, a member of the Assembly since 1978, has been fighting a rare form of cancer and last year said he might not run for reelection in 1992. But the 56-year-old legislator later backtracked, saying he would “definitely” run for an eighth term, and now insists that he intends to serve until Proposition 140 forces him from office.

“My plans are to go ahead,” Felando said. “When my six years run out, I will return to private life.”

Floyd, who has served in the Assembly since 1980, has similar plans: “I’ll be 65 in 1996. What’s the difference if I set my retirement date or if the people set my retirement date?”

Other South Bay legislators are tuning their political antennae, hoping to home in on another elective office rather than end their political careers. Incumbents in this category include the 37-year-old Tucker, who initially won his seat in 1989, and Assemblyman Dave Elder (D-San Pedro).

“The most natural progression for me would be the state Senate if a vacancy occurs,” said Elder, 49, an Assembly member since 1978. “Obviously, when I get to (1996), I’ve got to make decisions.”

One South Bay lawmaker already has announced plans to run for another office. Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), who has held her current seat since 1978, declared her intention last month to run next year for the Los Angeles County supervisorial seat held by Kenneth Hahn.

If she loses, Watson, 57, said she would try to retain her Senate seat, which she is not required to relinquish under Proposition 140 until 1998. But in that case, she might find herself in a 1994 reelection fight with Assembly allies, thanks to the term limits.

“What’s going to happen now is you’re going to see a lot of good friends running against each other for seats,” said Tucker. “If Diane Watson doesn’t win (the supervisorial race) and doesn’t vacate her seat, I might have to run against her for the Senate. It’s the only way to move up.”

Proposition 140 might also prompt Assemblywoman Gwen Moore (D-Los Angeles) to run for Watson’s seat, Tucker says. The 47-year-old Moore, an Assembly member since 1978, could not be reached for comment.

Watson’s long-term goal is to enter the diplomatic corps, she said, but that will hinge on national politics. Said Watson: “I just haven’t had my president elected yet.”

Most South Bay incumbents oppose term limits, arguing that California will be left with an inexperienced Legislature that is more susceptible to special interests and gubernatorial pressure.

But the lawmakers acknowledge ruefully that with last week’s Supreme Court decision, they have no choice but to plan on complying with the measure.

Democrats have indicated they may try to appeal last week’s court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but lawmakers don’t hold out much hope.

“First the people voted for it and now the (state) Supreme Court has upheld it,” said Floyd. “What is there to say? We could bitch and holler and moan and groan but that won’t do any good.”

It is that sense of finality that encourages local officials such as Redondo Beach Mayor Parton, a strong supporter of term limits.

“It’s healthy that people who go into political office are forced to move on to higher office or return to the private sector,” Parton says. “It keeps them in touch with reality.”

Parton and Furutani are among numerous South Bay-based politicians interested in running for a seat in Sacramento. Others include Manhattan Beach Mayor Bob Holmes, Hawthorne City Councilman Charles Bookhammer and Torrance Councilmen Dan Walker and Mark Wirth.

Wirth, a 41 year-old Democrat who has been on the council since 1982, said: “Certainly you’ll see those of us who have been serving in local office, but you’ll also see brand new people running. It’s wide open.”

Who’s Leaving When Under the term-limit upheld earlier this month by the state Supreme Court, all of the 80 members of the Assembly must give up their current seats in 1996. But the term limits for California’s 40 state senators take effect on a staggered schedule, with some required to give up their current seats in 1996 and others in 1998. Here are the departure dates for senators whose districts include parts of the South Bay.