Terms of Endearment: The Term-Limitation Debate : Why The Times endorses Proposition 131 but opposes 140

In past editorials The Times has opposed term limitations on politicians. The idea seemed gimmicky, even insulting to those hard-working officials who may deserve criticism, but not a hard slap in the face. Yet persistent and recurrent problems--exposure of corruption in Sacramento, a lack of serious competition in most political contests and declining voter turnout--suggest that our initial hope that the system might correct itself seems less and less warranted. Some basic reform is warranted. And so The Times, while it opposes Proposition 140, endorses Proposition 131.

To be sure, term limitations of any sort raise a constitutional question: On what basis can voters be stopped from reelecting an incumbent? Limitations are inherently risky. The Law of Unintended Consequences often comes into play to frustrate the best-laid plans. But if the aim is to open doors and windows and let fresh breezes into a system that suffocates from its own tired hot air, there can be no doubt that Californians are ready for change. They are troubled by the state’s lengthy list of problems and short list of answers. They are angered by the political gridlock, by politicians pocketing money or not doing their jobs, by a sense the system is adrift in a sea of self-interest.

Voters might go to the polls and vote the bums out if the incumbents faced opponents who were plausible and electable. But that’s rarely the case. Even when a challenger offers quality, the cards are stacked in the house’s favor. In Los Angeles County, it’s the rare Republican who has any chance; in Orange County, it’s the Democrats who face Mt. Everest. Incumbents with either token or absurd opposition don’t need much of anything to get reelected, except incumbency and a healthy campaign war chest. This is one reason this newspaper is choosing to endorse in only a few legislative races this year.

Madison made the classic argument against term limitations in Federalist Paper No. 72, but if he were a Californian today, reviewing Proposition 131, he might want to rethink his blanket opposition. This measure offers term limitations that are sensible rather than destructive and, by mandating a controlled measure of turnover, those limits could improve the quality of leadership in Sacramento.

Under 131, elected executive officers can serve up to eight consecutive years, and legislators 12. They can then switch jobs or, after sitting out at least one term, they can even run again for the same office--unlike Proposition 140, which limits officials to eight years in the office they held (six for Assembly members) and then bans them from that job forevermore.

Proposition 131 also offers a fresh system of ethical campaign financing--clamping a reasonable lid on private contributions while offering partial public financing. It installs new rules to restrict honorariums and campaign fund-raising except near campaign time; it reduces opportunities for exploitation of office, and mandates the creation of an anti-corruption prosecution unit. Much needed.

By contrast, Proposition 140 is too harsh. It would even deny elected officials a pension for their services and would cut legislative staff back. There is a meanness here. There is also a huge political risk: Instead of achieving greater accountability to the public, 140 would probably impair accountability--create a revolving-door system at a time the battered system is already dizzy.

Remember that the Legislature’s unsatisfactory performance this year was no solo act. It was assisted by a sometimes stubborn, veto-happy governor and a plethora of state problems that would have taxed the talents of a legislative chamber teeming with young James Madisons. Don’t forget, too, that a smaller and smaller percentage of California’s electorate bothers to go to the polls every year. That’s not healthy, either. So there is plenty of blame to go around. Even the press needs to avoid smugness: Just how good a job are we doing at informing and inspiring the electorate? It’s a mistake to blame politicians for everything.

But, ultimately, politicians are answerable to the people. The people require better performance. Proposition 131 should give them just that.