No On Proposition 93 – Limits On Legislators Terms In office, Initiative Constitutional Amendment
January 16th, 2008
Written By: Adam Sussman
In 1990 Californians voted for a term limit law which limited the Assembly to six years and the Senate for 8 year. An argument has been made that the limits placed on these elected officials is breeding inexperience in our states government. The term limits on our elected officials is too short for anyone to seriously get a handle on the complexities of running the state of California.
93 is written so it appears the amount of time a person serves in the state legislature is reduced from 14 years to 12 and it would allow all the 12 years to be served entirely in the State Assembly, State Senate or a combination of both.
At first when I read this proposition my instinct was to vote yes. I agree experience is needed to run the state and we should give our elected officials the time needed to be proficient managers. Because there are time limits on state legislatures, most of them spend their time focusing on their next political job and not on the state. By allowing them to stay in office longer (as long as we vote them to stay in) we give our elected officials time to learn the business.
Proponents of 93 make the case that lobbyists and other special interest groups have the upper hand with our government because the churn rate is so high and our government is filled with Freshman and Sophomores who lack the long term experience needed to run the state.
With that said why am I against 93? I have two issues with it.
The state is running a 14 billion deficit. As far as I am concerned the folks running things are not doing their jobs well enough. The way this proposition was written it craftily grandfathers a select few of our current legislators who are due to end their terms the end of this year to hold their seats for another 4 – 6 years.
From all I’ve read this bill is being pushed by special interest groups who want these officials to stay in office longer; specifically, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Perata.
I think these guys need to go.
Secondly, the original proposition which Californians voted in 1990 on terms limits still should hold for anyone who was elected into power before prop 93 takes over. We voted thinking there were term limits and if those limits should change, let them change when those official have fulfilled their duties.
This prop smells funky to me. If it was really for the cause of experience and the state, no one should be grandfathered in.
January 20th, 2008 08:40
Thank you for this article. Ballotpedia’s article about California Proposition 93 suggests that a number of newspapers in California, even newspapers that usually are opposed to term limits, are opposed to Prop. 93 because of the grandfathering feature you mention.