The Two-Term Illusion

The reforms of the Progressive era made California’s state and local governments widely admired national models. But now the ability of most of those measures to guarantee open, honest government has declined. This is why a new reform movement has begun. Many of the proposals being advanced as part of it are welcome and constructive; others, particularly the suggestion that limits be placed on the number of terms an elected official may serve, would create problems more serious than any they might solve.

The widespread frustration that attracts people to such proposals is understandable. On the state level, for example, the Progressive reformers’ cherished instrument of direct democracy--the initiative--has become little more than another tool of political technology: Too often nowadays, ballot propositions are devices by which candidates can circumvent legal spending limits. Locally, Los Angeles’ nonpartisan, managerial form of city government recently has been reluctant to deal not only with complex policy issues--such as growth--but also with allegations of its own malfeasance or corruption, as in the as-yet unresolved case of Mayor Tom Bradley.

The melancholy situation engendered by such institutional decadence can be seen either as an historical misfortune or as an historic opportunity. This was the attitude taken by Los Angeles’ Cowan Commission. Its far-reaching proposals for the reform of local government ought to be passed by Los Angeles’ City Council and closely studied by other municipalities. The commission’s approach, which includes tough conflict-of-interest laws and public disclosure provisions, offers far more promise than attempts to use the initiative process to impose legal limits on the number of terms elected officials may serve.

Two such problematic efforts currently are seeking signatures to qualify for the ballot. One, part of a statewide reform package, is being promoted by Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp as part of campaign to win the Democrats’ gubernatorial nomination. The other measure, which would deny Los Angeles’ elected officials more than two consecutive terms in the same post, is being advanced by a coalition of neighborhood groups and unsuccessful candidates for local office. Both proposals ought to be rejected.

Superficially attractive and emotionally appealing though they may be, term limits are almost always of dubious legality. The courts already have struck them down for cities without charters and are considering challenges to their application in municipalities with charters, such as Los Angeles.

Term limits are almost always bad public policy as well. In those cities--and on the state level--passage of term limits also would upset the balance of power between elected officials, who often require years of service to command the details of complicated policy questions, and senior civil servants, who are far less easily held accountable by the public.

Perhaps most disturbing, imposition of term limits would constitute a collective admission that both our government and our politics have failed. Such limits presume that public service must inevitably corrupt the majority of those who seek it. This is a dark perspective, indeed, and, if true, suggests that California’s problems are beyond mending by any ballot measure.

Term limits scoff at the ability of the people to recognize official corruption for what it is and to hold those who yield to it accountable through the normal political process: After all, whether the rascals have served one term or 10, they always can be voted out of office or recalled. There is no evidence that the people of California are either incompetent to work their will through the electoral process or that they wish to be relieved of the responsibility of political participation.