MATT BUSH/Assistant Art & Design Editor
CURRY CHANDLER
Online Editor
The prevailing focus of the approaching Super Tuesday state primaries will undoubtedly be the further refinement of the pools of potential presidents.
However, California voters will encounter a number of state initiatives on the Feb. 5 ballot. In California these are called propositions, and those appearing on the ballot next month address issues such as Native American gaming revenues and the California community college system.
One initiative in particular has attracted extended media scrutiny and discussion. Proposition 93, also known as the term limits prop, is deliberately designed to be misleading to voters and deviously opportunistic for state politicians. This is why Californians should vote “No” on Proposition 93.
Proposition 93 will appear on the Feb. 5 ballot under the title “Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office.” The existing term limits were established in 1990, and most Californians express enthusiastic support for the current restrictions. Unfortunately, an understanding of how term limits work does not always complement this enthusiasm.
Under the current limits, a person can serve up to six years in the state assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the state senate (two four-year terms) for a maximum total of 14 years in the state Legislature.
The state Legislature is comprised of 120 individuals and is consistently considered unfavorable by Californians, with an approval rating currently in the 40 percent range. If Proposition 93 were enacted, 42 of those unpopular politicians would remain in the legislature beyond the scope of their current term limits.
Proposition 93, if passed, would reduce the maximum number of years able to serve in the legislature to 12, but would allow a politician to serve the entire 12 years in the assembly, the state senate or a combination of both houses.
So how does this term restriction legislation actually extend the political careers of Sacramento clingers-on? It permits a “transition period,” which would allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they currently serve, regardless of any prior service in another house.
Some 40 lawmakers who would be “termed out” this year under existing term limits would have their legislative careers miraculously extended by Proposition 93. According to LA Weekly, a study by the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies predicted that if Proposition 93 passes on Super Tuesday, the average legislator will serve four more years than he or she does now.
Proponents of Proposition 93 argue that the ultimate goal is reconciliation between new politicians with fresh ideas, and seasoned legislators who might be more effective in getting legislation passed.
Although he had previously stated his opposition to reforming term limits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger penned an editorial for the Jan. 15 Los Angeles Times explaining his support for Proposition 93.
“Your representatives become more concerned with campaign cash, endorsements and independent expenditures than public policy,” Schwarzenegger wrote in the editorial. “So they operate in fear of alienating the special interests they must constantly rely on for campaign money.”
Here Schwarzenegger establishes what appears to be the crux of his argument in favor of Prop. 93: that “reforming term limits” will help state legislators resist special interest groups and focus on serving the good people of California.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez was elected in 2002, which means his stay in Sacramento has hit the six-year limit. With the Prop. 93 reforms Nunez could run for an assembly seat and extend his political career another six years.
Nunez is only one of many state legislators who would be eligible for term extensions under Prop. 93, but deserves special notice for his impassioned championing of the measure. Last October it was reported that Nunez had solicited all 47 Democrats in the state Assembly for about $50,000 each to help pass Prop. 93.
Likewise, Prop. 93 is not the only deceptively-worded initiative on the Feb. 5 ballot counting on the general ignorance of the voting public. I think that it deserves special notice for the flagrancy of the corrupt machinations and unmitigated careerism.
Proponents of Prop. 93 expect California’s voters to believe they want what the initiative offers. Under closer examination, however, it quickly becomes clear that this proposal is a gift to practicing politicians.
01-31-2008
