 |
|
|
|
February 16, 2007 5:30 AM
California Term Limits Change Initiative Emerges
An initiative to change California’s term limits law has just been submitted to the California Attorney General Jerry Brown for the normal legal vetting before signature gathering commences to place it on the ballot. The measure would allow state legislators to serve 12 years total in office, all of it in one house should they and their voters so choose. Current law limits legislators to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate, for a total of 14 years for legislators able to play the increasing musical chairs game. Current members would be able to continue in office in the current house in which they serve until they reach the 12 year limit. This would allow Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, both of whom are termed out of office at the end of 2008, to continue in their leadership positions. Although some believe there is a glitch in the current wording that could negatively impact Perata. Two consultants are heading up the campaign. Democrat Gale Kaufman, who quarterbacked the successful campaign to defeat Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 special election agenda and is chief political consultant to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. And Republican Matthew Dowd, who was chief strategist for Governor Schwarzenegger’s re-election campaign and pollster for President George W. Bush. There’s probably not enough Republican support in the Legislature to win the necessary two-thirds vote, hence the initiative drive, signature gathering for which would begin in April. Kaufman and Dowd played it very close to the vest under my questioning yesterday afternoon about what their polling and focus groups show. When I asked point blank how the election would turn out were it held in a week, I received no direct answer. Although Dowd noted that the Legislature is now at a recent high point in public approval. Last month’s Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll gave the institution a 40% job approval rating, up sharply from the 20s in which it has previously languished. Both consultants acknowledged that Schwarzenegger’s very active support would be critical. The former action superstar, his approval ratings restored to near the stratospheric levels he enjoyed prior to his 2005 special election debacle, says he will entertain a change in term limits if it is coupled with reforming of redistricting, in which politicians currently essentially select their own voters. It is clear that the proponents of this change are relying, as they acknowledged under questioning, on the demonstrated continued performance of the governor and state legislature this year. And upon a massive bipartisan campaign that may yet emerge, but has not yet emerged. So far the head of the California Chamber of Commerce on the right and the head of the California Teachers Association on the left have expressed support. But this effort will need more crediblity than that. Insiders are simply not enough. There’s no question that California’s term limits, the most stringent in the country, have a negative impact on the levels of experience and expertise in the Legislature. I won’t soon forget walking into the office of the Assembly speaker some years ago, where the vastly experienced and savvy Willie Brown once reigned, to meet with the new speaker. Who had been one of my volunteers in the Gary Hart for President campaign, and happily reminded me of the occasion when I’d given him a prized pin in his collection, which he had on his desk. A very smart man who had had little experience in organizing things, and precious little time in the speakership to gain that needed experience and then, with term limits, he was gone. The two current leaders, Nunez in the Assembly and Perata in the Senate, have proved to be very effective, working in a strong partnership with Schwarzenegger. Nunez in particular, who had much less political experience than Perata, has improved dramatically as he has gained experience. For the first time in years, major things are happening in the state Capitol. Yet experience in power is no guarantee of good government. Willie Brown was and is a brilliant, extraordinarily experienced figure. A pragmatic leader rather than an ideologue. His nearly 15 years as California Assembly speaker was, ultimately, brought to an end only by the passage of the term limits law. Yet the law passed in large part because Willie Brown came to be seen as a symbol of institutional excess in power. Many made fortunes off of what was known as Willie Brown, Inc. Brown played into his own demonization — much of partisan and racial in character, to be sure — by calling himself the Ayatollah of the California Legislature. So far, there is little reason to believe that most voters regret the term limits decision. While there has been kvetching for years about term limits in and around the state Capitol, little has been done to educate the public about its perceived ills. The last statewide attempt to alter term limits, a few years ago, failed miserably. This will be an uphill struggle, requiring a very sophisticated campaign, continued achievement in the Capitol, and the heavy intervention of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Comments (45)Jonas Blane :Barbara :NWN "This will be an uphill struggle, requiring a very sophisticated campaign, continued achievement in the Capitol, and the heavy intervention of Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Ann :I have trouble seeing this initiative passing. I don't think the voters think they are losing great leaders as a result of term limits. The same people keep running for office anyway. lol Bill Bradley :Thanks. It will be interesting to see how this campaign comes together. There's some bleating that term limits and redistricting are supposed to be tied together, but if the legislative votes aren't there on term limits with the right-wing constantly hammering on it, there's not much option. Sacramento Solon :Bill, Nice write. I totally dislike the concept of term limits and what it has done. Now, speaking of good government and with only a week left before the bill introducion deadline, where is that annual piece of legislation that speaks to the betterment of human kind? Yes, when will the ferret bill be introduced? The bill that each year seeks to allow folks to have ferrets as pets. Where is the bill that will free the ferrets? And will this be the year that they finally win their long ferret rights struggle? The Old Solon says, "down with term limits and up with ferrets!" Ann :The ferrets were in Kindergarten Cop, right? Bill Bradley :Sacramento Solon :Ann, While I didn't know, just looked it up on Wikipedia and sure enough they did. The entry on the movie includes the following: A ferret features prominently in this movie. Campaigners in California — the state of which Schwarzenegger is governor — are currently fighting for a law to legalise the animals as pets in their state. As a final note, while it's still illegal to have a ferret as a pet, I do believe that they hold down a couple seats in the Assembly. Yes, they do! Mic :The term limit law is one of those ironic public policies in which the public remains firmly committed to acting against its own self interest. But good luck trying to make that case in an election. Public support for term limits is driven largely by dislike of politicians as a class, as opposed to one's own elected officials. Thus no one has less credibility in a term limits debate than the prisoners sitting on political death row. It is only in the rarefied air of the 95814 zip code that reasonable people can be found discussing the evils of term limits. How many Californians are frustrated at not having enough new laws on child spanking and light bulbs? Thus the current initiative proposal is doomed from the get-go because it springs not from a deep well of mobilized public opinion, but quite publicly from the two least-trusted parties to the debate: the effected politicians and their well paid consultants. Having already framed the debate as "we're not doing a good job because we're not here long enough," the political class is simply begging the public take them to the woodshed. And so they will. Even in California spanking politicians is still legal. Bill Brasky :The toughness of this fight is highlighted by the lack of disclosure on focus groups and polling, which has been going on for at least the past two years. If there was good news, don't you think it would have been announced? And Bill reminds us, L.A. is not CA. If they win, I'll be happy (term limits suck. That is if I don't die of shock. Hap Hazard :The only term limits initiative that can pass is one that, like Prop. 40, is vigorously opposed by legislators. (Repeal full-time legislature + term limits = victory) Kandy Kid :I saw results of a survey taken in August which showed the 12 years in either house option polling at 37%. The 12 years in each house and 20 years in either were in the high 20s. As others mention here, the 12 in either option seems to track with legislative approval in general. Of course any modification might poll better if it did not apply to sitting members... Allan Hoffenblum :I support term limit reform and a total of 12 years in either or both houses of the legislature seem reasonable. But why the "grandfather clause" to allow all incumbents termed out in 2008 to be allowed to run for reelection? Among the 20 state senators termed out in 2008, all have already served 12 or more years in the legislature. This initiative, if passed, would allow Senators Perata, Torlakson Scott, Kuehl and Vincent to be able to have serve a total of 16 years; Senator Ackerman 17 years; Senators Machado and Battin 18 years; and Senator McClintock 26 years. Why the exceptiion for them? Those who are serious about term limit reform should support a ballot measure on the Nov. 2008 General Election ballot, which will have the highest turnout of the three elections voters will be asked to participate in 2008, and stop looking at ways to con them. Hap Hazard :If legislators are for it, the people are against it. Bill Bradley :Well, Hap, that's not exactly true. The public likes most of the Legislature did last year, and just voted for the Big Bang Bonds. Ann :Term limits are stupid but nothing has been done to convince the public differently. RaisinGuy :There seems to be an assumption that the likelihood of the voters modifying term limits is related to their satisfaction with the job the legislature is doing. Wrong! The voters may like the job this strictly term-limited legislature is doing -- and therefore be reluctant to change the system. Herein lies the trap - if the term-limited legislature is popular, then term limits must be a good thing, right? But when the legislature is unpopular, than no one believes term limits are to blame. Either way, Fabian should be working on his resume. Bill Bradley :That's a very clever point, RaisinGuy. Good catch! Little Buddha :Hilarious...adjusting term limits is like sugar plum fairies in their heads...And now we find, according to Lance Olson in the Sac Bee this morning, there is a glitch in the language that would prevent Perata from running again...So if they change the language to accomodate the pro Tem, it will be even more obvious to voters that this is not reform, but a cute deal trying to piggy back on redistricting reform. If they don't, then it will point out to insiders that this is really about one guy: Fabian Nunez....who is willing to parlay away the power of future legislatures over redistricting for his one shot at staying Speaker. Imagine that. Capitol Boy :Not happening. Bill Bradley :I referenced the Perata situation with the initiative language, which is complex. Paul Burton :Putting the term limits measure out there as part of a deal to move the presidential primary up is a lousy deal. The term limits measure probably won't pass, and we will be subjected to the pandering presidential hopefuls invading our state with their BS earlier and more often. For what? Californians won't benefit from supposedly having our state be a bigger factor in determining the nominees. Candidates will come here, as they already do, to suck up to the big money donors and play lip service to some vague issues. It's all money driven. Then another election in June with a low turnout (even lower than the usual pathetic 43 percent or less participation). And at what cost to taxpayers? This is a bad deal for California and argues for voting out the incumbents who are wasting our time and money. Bill Bradley :Actually, Paul, what you appear to think is a nefarious capitalistic package deal is not. Hence the announcement of the term limits initiative, as distinguished from a term limits bill. Shawn Casey O'Brien :Until the politicians (and their consultants) educate the average voter as to how term limits benefit only the lobbyists and big money interests -- which they should have been doing all these pass years -- voters are going to continue to foolishly indulge in the fantasy that somehow inexperience legislator run the legislature. 12 years in one chamber is not the answer, either. It only means that the game of musical chairs goes on longer and the influence of big money is strengthened. Oh, to have legislators who constituents love them enough to elect them for decades and thus, no amount of big money can scare them or influence them. This is a phony reform put in place just to help those already in power... what a shame. More than likely this half hearted, half assed initiative will be defeated and the political class has no one to blame but themselves. Ann :Oh, let's not forget Perata. Is this the Nunez-Perata idiots feud showing its pointed little head? lol Jonas Blane :Who thinks this initiative will win? Bill Bradley :Will or might? Ann :I don't think it will win if they ever get their act together to write it right. Jonathan Hemlock :If Gov. Schwarzenegger gets behind this with all his might, it might pass. Ann :Why can't the children in the Assembly and the children in the Senate get together on the initiative to keep them all in office? Bill Bradley :Is that a rhetorical question? :) Ann :Yes. lol Capitol Boy :These guys are pretty damn boring. Bill Bradley :Everybody have a great holiday weekend! NWN will publish as always, but on a reduced basis. RM 'Auros' Harman :To be fair to Paul, I think his idea is that the announcement of the term-limits package is all a sham, and that everyone knows the thing will fail... Which he may be right about. And I'm honestly not thrilled with a 12-year-combined rule anyhow. That's two years LESS than people can serve currently (3 terms of 2 years in the assembly, plus 2 terms of 4 years in the Senate, makes 14 years). Ann :That is almost as confusing as Paul. lol Democratic activist :What folks don't realize is this term limits proposal fundamentally would change the balance of power in the Legislature. Why? In just one election, the State Senate will become filled almost entirely with rookies. Assemblymembers no longer will run for State Senate, so half the representatives in the 2009-2010 "upper house" may not have served a day in the Legislature. If this passes effective 2008, we will lose more than half the Senate with no current Assemblymembers even taking a chance at "moving up." Recently failed Assembly candidates will have an inside track to being nominated to the Senate because of name recognition. And, in the future, you'll rarely see a State Senate candidate who had Assembly experience. For the reform as proposed to work, we'd need to move to a unicameral system or elect Assembly and Senate in different years so incumbent Assemblymembers could run for Senate without giving up their "sure thing." When the voters realize they are asked to give power to the Assembly at the expense of the "grownup" side of the Legislature, this effort is going to tank. Bad policy that mostly would extend the terms of current Assemblymembers with no positive impact on the Senate. RM 'Auros' Harman :Ann, I like some of your comments, but could you please learn to do basic arithmetic? You can't identify the percentage of population in different counties (data freely available, which I looked up in all of 30 seconds), can't apparently tell the difference between 12 and 14... Sheesh. And I agree with Democratic Activist's point. I will not vote for a 12-year-both-houses limit. Somewhere between 14 and 30, I'd change my mind. My ideal is still a limit of 32 years in the leg, 40 total in state office (leg or exec). Westwoodnc :Real reform in my opinion, would turn the state legislature into a unicameral body with 300+ members. 16 year term limits and independent redistricting. Cut the pay of all but those in leadership. With that, our legislature would be more representative with only about 150,000 persons per district compared to the minimum of half-a-mil to one million today. Turnover is assured with term limits and independent redistricting. Legislative efficiency increases with unicameralism (all that committee work and legislative review do not have to be duplicated in our current system) but balanced out by having more members to approve legislation. Who could disagree? RM 'Auros' Harman :Well, I'm in favor of bicameralism, but I'd make the Senate have single-member districts or Proportional Representation in blocks of three to five, and the House have state-wide Proportional. Bill Bradley :Don't forget that LA city is a fraction of the size of LA county. Much more liberal and Democratic. As is the case with San Francisco within the bay Area. RM 'Auros' Harman :The Presidential election results for Santa Clara County (the first one I checked, since I live there) were better than 60% "blue" in both '00 and '04. Los Angeles County too. Alameda had almost 70% in '00, and over 70% in '04. Yes, the core-city is the most liberal enclave. But our 'burbs aren't exactly conservative. Bill Bradley :Sure, but you quickly become more and more attenuated when you generalize from LA and SF to the entire state. RM 'Auros' Harman :My point was that if you can win a big enough majority in those two regions -- say, the 70% level scored in Alameda -- you don't need to generalize to the rest of the state, because winning even 25% out there is enough to end up with an overall majority. I agree that there's a wide diversity of attitudes in the state. I'm just saying that an effective campaign that could capture large majorities of these two regions could be enough to put the campaign for term-limit changes over the top, with only minimal effort anywhere else. The numbers speak for themselves. (I actually also think such a campaign would be a bad thing -- Rovist base-pandering, rather than building out from somewhere near the center.) Bill Bradley :I don't think people view term limits like they do the Iraq War. Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaIs Racism Hurting Obama in Middle America? Barbara Walters and Her Amours A Russian Documents the Truth About Russia Amazon’s Kindle Draws the Reader In Ethically Speaking: Should You Vacation in Burma? Critics Miss Benefits of ‘No Child Left Behind’ The Singing Revolution Against the Evil Empire How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
Voters like some politicians, but not as a class. This benefits politicians as a class.
Feb 16, 2007 06:07 AM