Apparently it is hard to fathom for many politicians in Sacramento that when a majority of Californians voted for Proposition 140 back in 1990, they actually liked the idea that there would be turn-over in legislative seats fairly frequently. Survey after survey have revealed that voters in the Golden State do not want to repeal term-limits, nor do they want to weaken them. They want a legislature where their representatives leave from the private sector for a time, and then return back to a regular job. One of the major reasons that people I know voted for Proposition 140 was to end the era of the ‘career politician’ who would serve decades in office.
It is somewhere between laughable and tragic that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (who faces an end to his legislature tenure next year after serving three two-year terms in the state house) actually has the nerve to say that the measure that he has submitted for approval to pursue signature gathering somehow ‘strengthens’ term limits.
The current law on term limits says that you can only serve in the Senate for eight years, and the Assembly for six. One of the major ideas behind term limits is that voters don’t want politicians serving in one chamber long enough to become ‘entrenched’ and to create ‘fiefdoms’ for legislative leaders.
Nunez’ departure from the legislature next year is a good thing. It means that someone else will have a shot at running the institution.
This argument that under Nunez’ plan term-limits are strengthened because an individual’s ‘legislative career’ is capped at twelve years instead of a theoretical fourteen (if you happened to serve three terms in the Assembly and then go on to serve two terms in the Senate) belies logic. If you look, most members of the Assembly do NOT go on to serve in the Senate. A simple lesson in arithmetic helps one to understand why — there are only half as many Senators, 40, as there are Assemblymembers, 80, and not every Senator elected comes from the Assembly. And certainly most Senators who are elected without serving in the Assembly don’t ‘hop’ over to the lower house. Some go back and forth, but not even close to half!
There must be something in the water in the State Capitol. For over a month now, we have been arguing with the Governor that his proposed hike in payroll taxes and income taxes in his healthcare plan are not fees, but are tax increases. Which is just silly.
Now we have to debate whether or not a measure that allows a Senator to serve three terms instead of two, and an Assemblymember to serve six terms instead of three, is a weakening of the state’s current term limits law.
Why doesn’t someone introduce legislation to proclaim that the sky is purple?
Opponents of term limits have a lot of legitimate arguments as to why they are poor public policy. Even I, a staunch supporter of term limits, will acknowledge them as more of a ‘necessary evil’ as not all of their impacts are positive. So term limits opponents should bring that debate to the public.
But if they think that the voters of California are dumb enough to swallow some ‘smoke and mirrors’ faux-argument that Nunez’ measure ‘strengthens’ term limits — well, it only serves to show the hubris of Nunez and his allies, and a profound disrespect for the people of California.
Bring on the debate about whether term-limits for state legislators are a good idea. But don’t try to ‘fake out’ the public – they will see through it, and reject the measure in overwhelming numbers.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.