Voters split evenly on term-limits measure

Half of likely California voters support Proposition 93, the ballot measure to adjust the Legislature’s term limits, but nearly as many appear poised to reject it, according to a new poll.

A week before election day, with most respondents saying they have made up their minds, the initiative shows no strong lead, according to a Times/CNN/Politico poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp.

The 1,218 likely primary voters interviewed Wednesday through Sunday under the supervision of Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus showed 50% supporting Proposition 93 and 46% opposing it, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Republicans are evenly split on the measure. Democrats and independents show more inclination to vote for it, but initiatives generally need stronger support before election day to overcome the tendency of uncertain voters to say no.

“Historically, you do need to be over 50% during the last couple of weeks,” said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the Target Book, which tracks legislative and congressional races.

Other surveys taken in recent months have tracked an erosion of support for Proposition 93, with the most significant declines among Republicans and voters older than 50.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a reversal, endorsed the initiative this month. His experience in Sacramento, he said, convinced him that “special interests and lobbyists up there are so much more sophisticated and so much more advanced than the politicians.”

Orchestrated by the Legislature’s Democratic leadership and funded by many corporations, unions and other interests with a stake in legislative action, Proposition 93 would alter the term limits voters passed in 1990.

It would shorten the overall number of years a legislator may serve from 14 to 12 but allow all of those years to be spent in either the Assembly or Senate. Under current law, members of the Assembly are allowed three two-year terms and senators are permitted two four-year terms.

Proposition 93 would also allow current legislators to stay, regardless of time previously spent in the Legislature, until they have served a total of 12 years in their current house. That clause would enable Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) to run for an additional six and four years, respectively.

If Proposition 93 fails, Nunez and Perata will be forced to leave the Legislature in December. The two leaders spearheaded last year’s effort to move California’s presidential primary election from June to February, a change that will allow them to run on the June ballot if Proposition 93 passes.

Supporters of the initiative argue that California’s term limits expel legislators just as they are gaining the knowledge and experience needed to tackle such complex issues as healthcare, the state water supply and budgeting. Proposition 93, they say, strikes a balance that protects term limits while allowing lawmakers to focus more on policy than reelection.

Opponents call the measure a deceptive, self-serving attempt by legislative leaders to hang on to their jobs. They say the measure undermines term limits by extending the time a lawmaker can stay in one house. Other foes complain that Nunez and Perata broke a promise to couple Proposition 93 with a measure to take away from legislators the power to draw voting districts.

The “yes” campaign has been run by Nunez’s political consultant Gale Kaufman and funded by at least $14 million in donations from public employee unions, utilities, energy companies, Indian tribes, hospital groups, insurers and other interests, most of which have a regular lobbying presence in Sacramento.

Proponents’ television ads say the initiative would give legislators “more time to solve problems” and minimize the power of lobbyists by creating a more experienced Legislature.

Opponents have raised about $7 million, mostly from the state prison guards union; Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, an independently wealthy Republican with gubernatorial aspirations; and U.S. Term Limits, a national nonprofit group that does not disclose its donors.

In its television ads, the “no” campaign calls Proposition 93 a “fraud created by two politicians.” The spots remind viewers that the FBI searched Perata’s house three years ago in an ongoing corruption probe and that Nunez is under investigation by a state ethics commission for possible misuse of campaign funds.

The Nunez investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by the California Term Limits Defense Fund, which signed the ballot argument against Proposition 93.

Poll respondent C.J. Silver, a 69-year-old retiree in Antelope, north of Sacramento, said she likes the way Proposition 93 would shorten overall terms but detests what she called “an escape clause” for incumbents.

“They’re sneaky about it,” said Silver, a Republican who said she would vote against the measure.

Donna Hall, 54, a Republican who lives in Riverside, said she didn’t like the notion of extending the terms of sitting lawmakers either but would put up with it to shorten terms overall. She said she would vote “yes.”

“The longer somebody stays somewhere,” Hall said, “the more comfortable they get, and the more comfortable they get, the more advantages they think they can take.”

Democrat Domenic Torchia, a retired air traffic controller who moved three years ago from the Bay Area city of Fremont to the Sierra foothill community of Columbia east of Stockton, said he has never liked term limits. Proposition 93 “gives us a chance to hang on to some really, really good people instead of just losing them in the shuffle,” he said.

Norma Ruiz, a San Jose Democrat who runs a neighborhood business district, called term limits “a safety net” that wouldn’t be needed if Californians held politicians accountable each time they came up for reelection.

“In reality we don’t have citizens that are that active,” she said.

That’s why, Ruiz said, she is inclined to vote against Proposition 93.

“I think the issues we’re facing are so big,” she said, “we don’t have the luxury of someone asleep at the wheel for very long.”

nancy.vogel@latimes.com