A 1990 California Gubernatorial Debate Demonstrates Dianne Feinstein's Prescience and the Ultimate Independence of the California Judiciary

The 1990 California Gubernatorial Debate Between Dianne Feinstein and Pete Wilson

For this week’s installment, I submit to you the 1990 California gubernatorial debate, held between Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and Pete Wilson (R-San Diego).

https://www.c-span.org/video/?14416-1/california-gubernatorial-debate

Prior to Senator Feinstein passing away this September, I had never seen this debate. Watching it was rather cathartic, helping me mourn her recent passing.¹

She was a larger-than-life political figure who in her politics was tough, shrewd, and practical, yet genuinely empathetic and willing to demonstrate political independence in order to seek justice and fairness. I continue to miss her.

Some context is needed for those who are unfamiliar with California politics.

That year, Feinstein, who had previously served as the Mayor of San Francisco but who had never won statewide election, ran as an underdog against Wilson, who was then California’s junior United States Senator.

It must have seemed strange at the time. Wilson, the former Mayor of San Diego, had won election statewide twice. In the 1982 Senate race, he defeated Governor Jerry Brown in an upset. Feinstein was the unabashedly feminist and pro-gay rights Mayor of liberal San Francisco.

Yet she proved a formidable challenger, running as a Democratic moderate and offering a message of change. She would come close to pulling off the upset, but ultimately narrowly lost. However, from defeat, she launched her campaign for Wilson’s former Senate seat, winning a landslide victory in 1992 against Wilson’s handpicked replacement, John Seymour.

It’s why I found this debate to be so fascinating and fun to watch. There are three key moments that stood out for me.

1. Dianne Feinstein’s prescience on the ultimate failure of term limits to change Sacramento and its potential to worsen pre-existing problems.

2. During this debate, Pete Wilson stated his strong support for the then-enjoined state law requiring minors to obtain parental consent for abortions. Despite appointing a majority of the Court’s Justices, his own appointed Justices would ultimately rule against the law.

3. Both Feinstein and Wilson being wrong about a recent federal court ruling that struck down California’s campaign contribution limits on state candidates.

I. Feinstein’s Prescience About Term Limits (At 39:50)

Also on the ballot in 1990 was Proposition 140, which not only term limited statewide executive offices but proposed strict term limits of just three terms for State Assemblymembers and two terms for State Senators. It also took away pensions from elected state lawmakers.

Wilson supported Proposition 140. Feinstein opposed Proposition 140.

She predicted that the problems that plagued the State Legislature would not be fixed by limiting how long a member could serve for. Instead, term limits would only exacerbate the problems in the State Legislature. There would be no term limits on bureaucrats or lobbyists. Instead, there would be a loss of critical institutional memory, from those legislators who knew how to deal with them.

She argued that none of the problems that plagued California, like the problems in the public educational system, auto insurance problems, environmental degradation, and crime problems, would not be solved by term limits.

Moreover, she argued using a constitutional amendment to get rid of powerful politicians who many disliked was not a proper use of the process.

As she explained, if Wilson was afraid of then Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and then State Senate President Pro Tempore David Roberti (both politically powerful men who were unpopular with most Californians), he could stay in Washington, DC and let her deal with them, because she knew how to and she wasn’t afraid of either.

Voters narrowly approved the toughest in the nation term limits in 1990.² The California Supreme Court upheld them against challenge, and Brown and Roberti were eventually forced out of Sacramento.³

But indeed, Feinstein was proven correct.

The problems in California’s public education and criminal justice systems did not improve simply by replacing the State Legislature. Inexperienced state legislators proved to be even less competent and even more power hungry. Term limited, elected officials constantly ran for other offices. And the loss of institutional memory and leadership only served to hamper the state during future crises.

II. Pete Wilson’s Inability to Control the Outcome of the Abortion Issue by the Courts (At 23:19)

In the debate, Pete Wilson declares that he supports parental consent for minors seeking an abortion. California had passed one legislatively in 1987 but it had not yet gone into effect as it had been enjoined by the courts and was still winding its way through the legal system.⁴

Feinstein opposed the law and called out Wilson for his shifting positions on the abortion issue, labeling him “multiple choice”. But the story of abortion rights in California took an interesting twist. One that is notable in light of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and Mitch McConnell’s manipulation of the Supreme Court.

Wilson would ultimately be able to appoint the majority of the Justices to the California Supreme Court. You might think that this would have kept the parental consent law in place.

Yet, in 1997, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who Wilson had appointed originally as an Associate Justice in 1991 and then once more as Chief Justice in 1996, the California Supreme Court struck down California’s parental consent requirement for minors seeking an abortion as unconstitutional under the California Constitution.⁵

At the time, the Court was comprised of a 6-1 Republican majority. Yet ironically, the only Democratic appointed and notably liberal Justice on the bench dissented.⁶

Moreover, Wilson’s appointments were more than a theoretical differential. In 1996, the California Supreme Court had shockingly upheld the statute.⁷ However, two Justices had retired by the time the decision had been issued and had been replaced by two Wilson appointments. All of the Justices appointed by Wilson voted to vacate that decision less than two months later and rehear the case.⁸

Notwithstanding Wilson’s control of the appointments to the Court, the Court did not bend to his will. They remained true to their constitutional role as an independent arbiter of the law, not as a political institution.⁹

III. Proposition 73 and California’s First Attempt to Institute Contribution Limits (At 6:28)

In 1988, California voters passed both Proposition 68 and Proposition 73 to implement contribution limits on state candidates.¹⁰ Because Proposition 73 received more votes, Proposition 68 was struck down as unconstitutional.¹¹ However, a district court held that Proposition 73’s contribution limits were unconstitutional because they had fiscal year limits instead of per cycle limits.¹²

Unsurprisingly, both Feinstein and Wilson claimed the decision was wrongly decided and seemed to assume that the contribution limits would be upheld on appeal. However, the decision striking them down was affirmed on appeal.¹³

IV. What are Your Thoughts?

If you have the time, please watch at least some of the debate.

And please let me know in the comments, what are your thoughts? What are your reactions to watching the debate? Anything notable stand out to you that I didn’t see? Any other thoughts?

1. The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author's scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.

2. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_140,_Term_Limits,_Legislature_Retirement_Benefits,_and_Legislative_Operating_Costs_Initiative_(1990)