At the end of next year, both Senate President Pro-Tem Don Perata, a liberal Democrat, and long-time legislator Roy Ashburn, a conservative Republican, will reach the end of their time in the State Legislature. Both will bump up against the voter-approved legislative term-limits in our State Constitution. This is as it should be. Term Limits allow for more Californians to have an opportunity to be citizen-legislators. As a matter of fact, were it not for term-limits, it is likely that neither of these politicians would be in Sacramento right now.
That said, it is with a skeptic’s eye that we read news that these two termed-out legislators are pushing forward with a ‘comprehensive reform’ plan for next year’s ballot that, if put before the voters as currently written, would allow Perata, Ashburn and a host of other legislators who would be forced to retire to instead serve longer in the State Legislature.
Of course, there has long been a discussion that Republican legislators, most of whom support the current term limits, would be willing to ‘compromise’ and agree to place a weakening of the current law on the ballot — if it was paired to a proposal to bring real redistricting reform to California.
Well, I guess there is some subjectivity to what "real redistricting reform" would mean.
I will lean on a conversation that I had with Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, who articulated the three "must have’s" for any redistricting proposal (not that this is meant to be comprehensive, but rather a few points that are for-sure deal breakers):
1) Redistricting must be undertaken by an independent commission, with no influence on the membership by the Governor or Legislators.
2) Senate and Assembly Districts must be nested within one another.
3) The plan must include not only State Legislative districts, but House districts as well.
Hold up the Perata/Ashburn plan to these points, and it falls significantly short.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but at this point, there is such hubris from the legislature in their quest to extend their terms that I am not sure that there is a "good deal" to be had here at all.
I’ll close by stating that Roy Ashburn is a personal friend, and I appreciate what he is trying to do here. But at a certain point, he should step back and realize that politics is a "team sport" — and that advancing a "compromise" that eliminates key and essential components on redistricting isn’t helping anyone (except, I suppose, termed-out legislators).
