San Jose State’s Survey Policy and Research Center just released some survey results on the term-limits weakening measure, public sentiment on illegal aliens, and popularity numbers for the Governator. You can read the summary release which is attached below.
Of particular note in this survey were the numbers on the term-limits weakening measure being placed on the ballot by termed-out legislative leader politicians Don Perata and Fabian Nunez. On the first pass, the career politician set would be chuckling with glee as respondents to the survey, based on having the ‘official’ description of the measure read to them, seem to support the measure with 56% saying they would vote for it.
Well, that is where the good news stops for them and the good news for those who oppose career politicians begins. The analysis with the attached survey penned by survey director Melinda Jackson makes it clear that it is Jerry Brown’s slanted wording that is responsible for the faux support for this measure. Jackson says that Jerry Brown’s description of the measure that emphasizes that the overall amount of time that an individual can serve in the legislature is reduced, rather than the extension of the amount of time that a legislator can spend in the house in which they were elected, is responsible for the support.
She goes on to say, "If opponents spend money on television ads against this proposal, if Governor Schwarzenegger opposes it or if Republicans or conservatives feel tricked, the measure could lose ground very quickly."
The reason for Jackson’s point is undoubtedly due to the fact that the strongest support for the measure, as described, comes from the most traditional proponents of term-limits – Republicans, conservatives and decline-to-state voters! As this group of folks starts to understand that this measure weakens term limits, and even worse, allows an entire group of politicians to serve in the State Legislature long beyond the current Prop. 140 limits, you can easily see where they will flip around, and how this measure will be in dire straights.
The supporters of this measure are fooling themselves if they think that this battle to weaken term-limits is going to be waged in some sort of vacuum. There will be a strong, vigorous campaign against this ill-advised attempt by politicians to keep their jobs at all cost, afraid of life in the private sector, and unwilling to allow other eager Californian citizens to come up and ‘give back’ by serving time in the legislature.
When I saw how essential support from Republicans, conservatives and DTS voters is for this measure to break into the mid-50’s, it made me think of a tower of cards preparing to topple…
June 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Give voters some credit, John. They will agree with what the AG and Field and San Jose state have determined by reading and understanding what’s being proposed.
Also remember that the original term limits proposal so strongly supported by Republicans and conservatives had the same “grandfathering” provision for legislators. Where are/were your complaints about that being a “sham”?
June 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
You are forgetting an important distinction. Prop 140 went from no term limits to our existing ones. You can’t impose term limits retroactively, and the courts would have tossed 140.
There is little ‘altruism’ in the current proposal. If it was just about the institution, Nunez could have written a measure to apply only to newly elected legislators.
Instead, this measure allows a massive end-run around term limits for a whole crop of legislators.
Under this measure, Nunez gets six more years as speaker, and Perata four more years as President Pro-Tem. But that isn’t enough, dozens of legislators that would be facing term limits would get to stay in office longer.
It will be the hubris of the career politicians like your boss, Steve, that undo this initiative.
The voters won’t stand for a self-serving career-extending measure for fat-cats.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Self-serving career-extending measure for fat-cats”? Funny, never heard you mention that when you were working for term-limit buster Sheriff Corona!!!
June 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Something I have always found interesting about the term limits debate from the beginning is that conservatives seem to be supporting government limitations on the peoples right to choose their representatives. It seems like almost an admission that sometimes laws are necessary to protect the public from abuses by the more powerful.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. This term limits initiative is nothing but an attempt to keep Hugo Nunez and Fidel Perata in power and it is time for change.I guarantee that every poll in the country will list as the number one desire of the voter right now is change. You think your boys are immune to that I don’t think so Steve.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Tom:
more powerful or the potential of a corrupt government, but your point is taken. Laws can be constructed that protect the public from powerful influencers who are self serving or corrupt government officials. The key here is to look at who passes the law and who it is restricting.
The law is passed by the public to restrict the government and protect the public interest.
IMO, this is a good thing. Give the people the power of governance over not only themselves but the government that serves them.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I’m just worried – what will become of Alan Nakanishi?