## Facts

- California voters adopted Proposition 140 at the November 6, 1990 general election, amending the state constitution to pursue “incumbency reform” by limiting “the powers of incumbency.”
- The measure implemented three principal reforms: (1) term limits for legislators and certain statewide constitutional officers; (2) caps on legislative expenditures and limits on state-funded legislative staff and support services; and (3) restrictions on legislators’ retirement benefits.
- After the measure took effect, the state Controller stopped making salary deductions and employer contributions tied to post-effective-date service for incumbent legislators’ retirement benefits.
- The Legislature, individual legislators, and citizen plaintiffs sought mandate/declaratory relief challenging the initiative’s validity on state and federal constitutional grounds.
- The challenges included claims that Proposition 140 was an impermissible “revision” (not an “amendment”) of the state constitution; violated the federal Contract Clause by impairing vested pension rights; violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by burdening voters and candidates; violated the state single-subject rule; and constituted a federal bill of attainder.

## Issues

1. Whether Proposition 140 exceeded the initiative power by effecting a constitutional “revision” rather than a permissible “amendment.”
2. Whether the pension restrictions unconstitutionally impaired incumbent legislators’ vested pension rights in violation of the federal Contract Clause.
3. Whether the term limits and related restrictions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by unduly burdening candidates and voters.
4. Whether Proposition 140 violated the state initiative single-subject requirement.
5. Whether Proposition 140 constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder targeting incumbent legislators.
6. If any provision was unconstitutional, whether it was severable such that the remainder could remain operative.

## Decision

- The court held Proposition 140 was a valid constitutional amendment within the initiative power and did not amount to a constitutional revision.
- The court upheld term limits and the legislative budget/staff restrictions against First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges, concluding the state’s interests in incumbency reform outweighed any burdens.
- The court found the initiative satisfied the single-subject rule because its provisions were reasonably germane to the subject of incumbency reform.
- The court rejected the bill of attainder challenge, concluding the measure pursued nonpunitive public purposes rather than punishment of a targeted group.
- The court held the pension restrictions were unconstitutional under the federal Contract Clause as applied to incumbent legislators because they impaired vested pension rights.
- The court held the pension changes could be applied to future legislators who first assumed office after the initiative’s effective date because they had no vested right to continuation of the prior pension system.
- The court severed the unconstitutional application of the pension provisions to incumbents and left the remainder of Proposition 140 in effect.

## Legal Principles

- An initiative may amend the state constitution but may not accomplish a fundamental restructuring that constitutes a constitutional revision; substantial changes aimed at incumbency limits do not necessarily amount to a revision.
- The state single-subject rule is satisfied when an initiative’s components are reasonably germane to a common theme or purpose.
- Term limits and related structural election reforms may withstand First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges when supported by sufficiently weighty state interests and when the burdens imposed are constitutionally permissible.
- Under the federal Contract Clause, a state may not substantially impair vested contractual pension rights of existing public officials through retroactive changes.
- Individuals who enter public office after a pension change generally do not possess vested rights in the continuation of a prior retirement system before employment begins.
- Unconstitutional provisions may be severed when the remainder can function independently and remains consistent with the initiative’s operative scheme.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Proposition 140’s term limits and legislative spending and staffing limits, treating the measure as a valid amendment addressing incumbency reform, but invalidated and severed the pension restrictions insofar as they impaired incumbent legislators’ vested pension rights under the federal Contract Clause, leaving the rest of the initiative operative.


Legislature v. Eu, 816 P.2d 1309 (Cal. 1991)