Today it was announced that a coalition of ‘interested parties’ is being formed to place a measure on the next statewide ballot (presumably the February ’08 Presidential Primary) to change our current term-limits restrictions from six two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the State Senate, to a new limit that is 12 years aggregate in either chamber of the legislature. It is not clear yet what the passage of this measure would mean for all of the current incumbent legislators, though it is suspected that they would all get to serve a lot more time than they currently have left – especially important to those politicians like Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez who would face life in the private sector at the end of next year. Perhaps this is why Nunez is pledging to dip heavily into the $7+ million that he has stockpiled away in campaign funds.
Democrat strategist Gale Kaufman and Republican strategist Matthew Dowd are onboard with this measure, providing political leadership.
I reached out to Paul Jacobs, the President of United States Term Limits, the nation’s leading advocate for term limit measures around the country, to see what his response was to this proposed ballot measure. This is what he had to say:
The politicians and special interests in Sacramento think the voters of California are suckers. Today, they’ve filed a phony initiative they pretend will "tighten" their own term limits. Fat chance. In reality, their initiative would double the amount of time a politician can stay in the Assembly and increase it in the Senate by 50 percent. In fact, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez admits he wants to weaken term limits: "I think we ought to relax those terms." Under this special-interest-funded initiative, Senator Don Perata (already mysteriously in his ninth year in a Senate limited to eight years) would be able to continue to wield power for yet another term.
Both leaders support weakening term limits precisely because it means more power for them. And less for those representing most Californians. Term limits equalize power in the legislature, because leadership lacks the longevity necessary to punish the average legislator. Hence, leaders want more power and more time in power.
This initiative is a scheme to return to the old seniority system and boss rule by the few or one man. It’s back to the Willie Brown days, when Brown was known as "the Ayatollah of the Assembly." Californians don’t want to go back there. Polls show 3 out of 4 Californians support the term limits as voters have set.
This proposition doesn’t come from the voters and it is not about reform. It comes from special interests that want special favors from politicians who want to stay in power longer. It is about more power for those lobbyists and politicians.
When politicians tried to weaken term limits back in 2002 with Prop 45, the special interests outspent term limits supporters by a whopping 10 to 1 margin. Yet, California voters still kicked their butts at the polls.
But this special interest measure will certainly be run by smart political operators. The best that special interest money can buy. They know voters favor term limits, so, if experience is any indication, they will run a dishonest campaign attempting to trick voters into thinking this is a tougher term limits law. It’s ridiculous and California voters will see through this political scam. And, thank goodness, voters will have the last word.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I personally would be very happy to see folks like Fabian Nunez waste millions trying to qualify and pass this measure. It is going to go down in flames and hopefully take millions of dollars out of play that could have been used in other pursuits.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
It’s always fascinating to read Beltway insiders like Mr. Jacobs talk about voters in a state they rarely have even visited. And he might be helpful if he actually read the proposal before denouncing it.
The proposal REDUCES the number of years that many members will be able to serve. Speaker Nunez, for example, would be able to serve 12 years, instead of 14 if he ran for the Senate and served there.
And as for the special interests, how about publishing the special interests that fund the single interest agenda of US Term Limits?
February 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Nice try Mr. Maviglio, but it doesn’t really reduce the number of terms:
(From the initative):
“a Member of the Senate or the Assembly who is in office on the effective date of this subdivision may serve 12 years in the house in which he or she is currently sewing.”
That’s not 12 years. For Senator Perata, that’s a full 14 years. The new limit is not even 14 years. For Assemblywoman Soto, it’s 16 years.
Anyone surprised?
February 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Doug, please re-read my comment. I was talking about Speaker Nunez and “many members” not the few senators who are grandfathered. In fact, his years in the legislature would be reduced.
The number of “terms” are increased but the number of years is DECREASED.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
There is simply no way that proponents of this new ballot measure are going to be able to credibly argue to voters that this measure strengthens term limits, while it allows virtually every politician currently in Sacramento to serve more terms.
Proponents should just be honest, and say that they think term limits are bad, but they risk anger from the electorate if they want to play games.
This measure is designed to allow the current crop of legislators to serve longer in Sacramento, plain and simple.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Is appears to me that the legislators who want term limit extensions thrown away the argument that the current limits benefit special interests by having the two most powerful Republican and Democratic special interests sponsor the measure?