A special joint legislative panel has been formed to look at two issues: changing the way that the decennial redrawing of legislative districts takes place, and the potential of changing the way California’s legislative term-limits work. Both are issues that ultimately would have to be brought to California voters before any change can take place.
There is no doubt that the current system of redistricting for the Golden State is flawed, producing an ultra-liberal legislature that has little regard for the notions of individual liberty and responsibility, and respect for the concept of a more limited role for state government in the lives of Californians. That said, there is a political graveyard filled with the ‘dead bodies’ of countless attempts to move the redistricting process out of the hands of legislators. It’s an issue easily made complicated to voters, who then seem to vote against it. We’ll see if something can come out of this committee that fares any better. Ready to pounce on any worthwhile proposal will be liberal Democrats who stand to gain from the status-quo which locks in their legislative majorities — and let’s not forget that our Republican Congressional folks totally sold-out to their own self interests (led by FR friends John Doolittle and Ed Royce) and came up with their own set of excuses for opposing an independent redraw of their (currently very safe and cozy) House seats. It will be a daunting task to get a bi-partisan redistricting measure out of the legislature, but I applaud any efforts!
That said, it is apparent that the ‘political price’ that may be exacted by Democrat leaders to bring them to the table to engage in the redistricting reform debate is a serious discussion about loosening California’s term limits for State Legislators. Currently an individual is capped at no more than three 2-year terms in the Assembly and two 4-year terms in the State Senate. It will be hard enough to convince California voters to sign off on redistricting reform, but to tie it to loosening of term limits? You may as well just drop the whole discussion.
**There is more – click the link**
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I was just back visiting in hometown in DC. Met friend who is a state senator in Virginia. She makes $17,000 a year, versus what, $135,000 plus another $25,000 in untaxed per diem for our Cal legislators… Cut Cal pols pay to $17,000 per year, and term limits takes care of itself
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I certainly agree that a pay “rationalization’ program for state legislators would be of big help–make the legislature part time. Redistricting would be a big step towards removing the need for term limits as well. Without safe districts real alternatives to the incumbents show up and self correct the dismal makeup we now have.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Unintended consequence to part-time: trial attorney and labor union organizers run the legislature and would still have long sessions.
Conservative business owners and salaried executives, such as myself, would be unable to serve as our businesses would fail or our bosses would refuse to continue to employ us. Republicans could then only afford to run if they were already independently wealthy or retired or if they were young and had no responsibilities yet.
Be careful what you wish for.
BTW, Virginia has less than 1/5th California’s population. Also, I don’t get paid $135K a year — I think that’s the Speaker’s salary.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
http://www.ChuckDeVore.com
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Term limits may be popular, but they are also misguided. Prop 140 had very short term benefits (i.e. Willie Brown gone), and a disatrous long-term (constant seat shopping, steep learning curve, arguable less accountability, more power to special interests and bureaucracies). An example of a quick fix that does not deliver what is promised.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I agree with Mr. Sheppard, for the same reasons.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Here is the catch-22 — because of gerrmandering, there IS no real choice for most voters except for occasional primaries in open seats. Term limits empowers voters to participate and have a more frequent relevency to the process. If districts (or more of them) were competive, than voters would have another outlet to have meaningful participation. I can also say that while it may seem a pain on one level to have six-year turnover in an Assembly seat, one aspect of the process that I have found marvelously refreshing is the new blood and ability for more talented people to serve. While there was continuity without term limits, you also had this paradigm of career legislators where the same person would sit in the same seat for decades.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
With all due respect, how much of the legislation in Sacramento really accomplishes anything…except to create more burdens on taxpayers, families, business owners, and executives.
How many bills are introduced in the Assembly every year…my guess is about 4000. How many of those actually address a true need in California? How many are introduced for PR purposes by the legislator? How many are introduced to generate campaign donations? How many turn into law and are actually enforced?
As a business owner, I would be much more willing to “serve” part-time than to abandon my business for 6 years.
Believe me, if we have to have a full-time legislature, there is no one I would rather have up there than Chuck Devore. But with that said, I am pretty sure our state would be fine, if not better, if we had a part-time legislature.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I don’t object to redrawing the districts to make them more competitive. Making districts more competitive strengthens the case for sunsetting term limits.
Why are bills introduced for PR purposes? Because legislators are trying to build up as much press as possible (for use in mail pieces) before they’re forced to reach for that next step in the ladder.
Why aren’t enacted bills being enforced? Or programs funded? Because the legislators who carried them are out of office or onto the next thing. There’s little accountability because political lives are so short.
That said, I think more politicians need to voluntarily exercise (George) Washingtonian humility and step aside at some point. In one election is not a lifetime appointee made.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:00 am
with all due respect to my friend jon, I see little good that new blood has brought to the process versus the negative consequences. of course, I am not a high-falutin’ (sic) big money lincoln clubber or consultant, so I don’t have a dog in the fight anymore.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:00 am
The best thing about Proposition 140…. (California term limits, voter-adopted 1990)
is: there’ve been NO MORE Willie Browns or (may he rest in peace) Jess Unruhs.
The Assembly Speakership is now a short-term thing, and that is good.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:00 am
My personal favorite was Senator Dills. He gave Strom a run for his money!