I think that Fabian Nunez owes a beer to his friend Jerry Brown. Below is the official Title and Summary of Nunez measure that WEAKENS term-limits. It’s sure hard to tell from what the AG wrote:
Date: April 11, 2007 Initiative No. 07-0004 Amendment No. 1S
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS’ TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments. (07-0004.)
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 am
That’s just it — it doesn’t “weaken” term limits, it reduces the number of years. Which as Field and San Jose polls show, voters overwhelmingly favor.
Where was all the squawking when Sheriff Corona didn’t limit his terms!?!?!
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Gee, Steve, if it doesn’t weaken terms then why is Speaker Nunez behind it? If it doesn’t weaken term limits then why would it double Fabian’s tenure in the Assembly?
The Sacramento politicians are trying to fool the voters and using the electorate’s overwhelming support for term limits to actually gut term limits. What a sham!
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Kevin: How about some math?
Current term limits: 14
Revision: 12
Tell me where the gutting is, if we’re simply allowing elected officials spend less — no more — time in office.
Using the Speaker as an example, as you insist, he’d be able for 12 years of service, not 14 if he served two terms in the State Senate.
Hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story …
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 am
More words to the wise:
In addition to reducing the overall time a legislator can serve, this initiative is actually even more stringent than Prop. 140, which essentially “restarted the clock” for sitting legislators by not counting any previous years of service. This initiative doesn’t do that – sitting legislators must count previous years of service in their current house.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Kevin,
The answer to your question is self serving politicians. As others have commented, summary would limit new office holders but extend Nunez’s tenure. One would have to be extremely naive to think he is doing it for the better of the state.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Would that be 14 or 12 beers to Jerry Brown? Retroactively? Would that be 20 or 18 beers?
Now, I lost count and I confused myself…
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Isn’t there an option to challenge the AtG language?
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The Return of Willie Brown? I could be wrong but my reading of the law says only those terms after 1990 count. Therefore Willie Brown and legislators who have not served 12 years in the Assembly could return and serve another 6 years? Any former member of the Assembly who was termed out and has not served in the Senate post 1990 for at least 6 years could return to the Assembly.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Wrong again. The initiative language says the terms must be served consecutively.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I don’t think so, the paragraph you are referring to in Section 2 Paragraph 4 subdivision (b)applies only to a member of the Senate or Assembly who is currently serving.
There is no place within the law that addresses those who served in the past.