Prop. 111 in Close Vote; Ethics Plan Wins Easily : Ballot measures: GOP-backed redistricting plans lose. State bond proposals winning acceptance.

Torn between dislike of higher taxes and impatience with traffic congestion, California voters were narrowly favoring a complex package of proposals that would ease government spending restrictions and trigger a 9-cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax.

With solutions to a state budget crisis riding on the outcome, the fate of Proposition 111 remained in doubt. Gov. George Deukmejian was banking that passage of the measure would allow him to leave office with a solid plan in place for revitalizing California’s overburdened transportation system.

As late returns filtered in, Propositions 118 and 119, two Republican-backed plans to change the way legislative and congressional districts are drawn every 10 years, clearly had gone down in defeat, while Proposition 115, a ballot measure that would streamline California’s criminal justice system was easily winning passage.

And in a triumph for lawmakers, voters approved Proposition 112, a ballot measure that would impose new ethical standards on state officials but make it easier for legislators and elected state officials to win pay raises.

Despite the complexity of many of the 17 propositions on the ballot, voters appeared to be making careful choices among some proposals. They were showing support, for example, for Proposition 121, which would authorize $450 million in bonds for higher education. But voters were much more strongly in favor of Proposition 123, which would permit an $800 million issue for public schools.

On the transportation front, Proposition 108, a plan for $1 billion in bonds to finance mass transit, was a favorite with the voters, but Proposition 116, an initiative that authorizes $2 billion in bonds for rail transportation, held a small lead. Proposition 108 cannot go into effect without the passage of Proposition 111.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee and an author of the gas-tax proposal, cautiously predicted victory for Proposition 111.

“I think people recognize that we have to solve the gridlock problems that we are facing and I think they understand that periodically you have to make an investment in the future,” Katz said.

Anti-tax crusader Ted Costa said he expected the voting to be “awfully close” because opponents did not have the financial strength to mount a strong media attack.

Early in the election evening, jubilant Democrats declared victory in their fight to defeat Propositions 118 and 119, which had the potential to change the balance of power in the Legislature.

“Once again the voters have indicated they want the Legislature to engage in reapportionment,” said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles).

In the weeks leading up to the election, the governor’s proposal for changes in the spending limit and the initiatives on reapportionment were the most visible ballot measures as transportation and anti-tax groups attacked each other on the gasoline tax and Republicans and Democrats locked horns over the drawing of district lines.

Divided by philosophical differences and distracted by internal squabbles, anti-tax forces did not emerge as a factor in the gasoline tax debate until late in the campaign, when backers of the proposals had already spent millions on television advertising, garnered the support of 250 organizations and won endorsements from top elected officials.

The timing of the anti-tax group, however, proved fortuitous. Demanding free air time to counter the barrage from the Proposition 111 and 108 forces, Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) and anti-tax activists Tom Rogers and Costa persuaded numerous radio stations and a few television stations to run low-budget spots attacking the spending limit changes. The counterattack hit the airwaves just as the “Yes on Propositions 111 and 108” campaign was running out of money and being forced to cancel its final television advertising blitz.

With both Democrats and Republicans viewing reapportionment as a high stakes battle that would determine their party’s future standing in the state power structure, Propositions 118 and 119 drew more media spending than any other ballot measures. By the week before the election, the two sides together had invested more than $6 million in the campaign.

Teaming up with organized labor, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Roberti spearheaded a Democratic assault against the two propositions and enlisted Hollywood personalities Jack Lemmon, James Garner and Bea Arthur for a spate of commercials. The poorer-financed opposition responded with advertisements that starred actor Charlton Heston.

Both measures would change the way district lines are drawn for elections to the state Assembly and Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans argued that the change is needed to keep Democrats from drawing district lines in a manner deliberately designed to maintain incumbents--particularly Democrats--in office. Democrats countered that the new process would have the effect of reducing the number of women and minorities who hold political office.

Under the current system, the task of redrawing district lines is undertaken every 10 years by the Legislature with the governor holding veto power over the final product. In 1981, Democrats, who held the governor’s chair and a majority in each legislative house, dominated the process.

While leaving redistricting in the hands of the Legislature, Proposition 118 involved changing the process by requiring that any plan receive two-thirds vote in each house, the governor’s signature and the endorsement of state voters. Proposition 119, a more drastic measure, would cut the Legislature out of the process entirely and transfer its role to an independent 12-member commission appointed by a panel of retired appellate court judges.

Overshadowed by the big-money battles waged over the gas tax and reapportionment were the proposals to streamline criminal justice procedures and impose new ethical standards on legislators.

The criminal justice measure became enmeshed in gubernatorial politics in the early months of the campaign when state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, a Democratic candidate for governor, claimed that a privacy provision would jeopardize abortion rights.

An irritated U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, the honorary chairman of the Proposition 115 campaign and a Republican candidate for governor, said Van de Kamp was trying to create a political issue out of thin air. He said the initiative would not limit any civil rights guaranteed under state law because it applied to criminal procedures. His argument won support from former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, the other Democratic gubernatorial candidate and a backer of the proposal.

Seeking to reduce delays in criminal proceedings, the initiative forces California to copy more of the federal system. It amends the California Constitution to require state courts to follow the generally more restrictive federal courts in interpreting a number of rights of criminal defendants.

Proposed in the aftermath of an FBI investigation into state government corruption, the ethics measure stops lawmakers from accepting outside speaking fees, puts a limit on gifts they can receive and prohibits them from lobbying their former colleagues for 12 months after they leave office.

But to sweeten what is to some legislators is an otherwise distasteful measure, the proposal also creates a seven-member independent commission and gives it authority to grant substantial pay increases to lawmakers, the governor and other elected state officials.

HOW THE PROPOSITIONS FARED

Edition-time status of the propositions on the election ballot: Proposition 107: Housing and Homeless Bonds: Leading Proposition 108: Passenger Rail Bonds: Leading Proposition 109: Governor’s Review of Legislation: Leading Proposition 110: Tax Exemption for Disabled: Passed Proposition 111: Gas Tax and Spending Limit: Leading Proposition 112: Ethics Standards for State Officials :Passed Proposition 113: Practice of Chiropractic: Passed Proposition 114: Murder of a Peace Officer: Passed Proposition 115: Criminal Law: Leading Proposition 116: Rail Transportation Improvement: Leading Proposition 117: Wildlife Protection: Leading Proposition 118: Redistricting; Legislative Ethics: Failed Proposition 119: Redistricting :Failed Proposition 120: Prison Construction Bonds: Leading Proposition 121: Higher Education Facilities Bonds: Leading Proposition 122: Quake Safety for Public Buildings: Leading Proposition 123: School Facilities Bonds: Leading