Don’t Call It Unconstitutional : High court refuses to overturn term limits

Finally and definitively, the U.S. Supreme Court has, in effect, upheld Proposition 140, the term-limits initiative approved two years ago by California voters. Soon other states may face the challenge of trying to make a controversial experiment like California’s work. It can be done--but only if they avoid the excesses of 140 that this state is still attempting to find a way to live with.

THE DECISION: In refusing to overturn a measure that could mark the beginning of a sea change in American politics, the high court offered no new insights into the debate over whether voters should set term limits on their elected officeholders. The Supreme Court simply declined to hear two different appeals on Proposition 140, one by its backers and one by lawyers representing members of the Legislature. That means the California Supreme Court’s decision of last October, which found term limits legal but tossed out part of 140 that limited legislative pensions, will stand.

Oklahoma and Colorado also passed term limits in 1990, and a similar measure may be on the Florida ballot in November. The next chance for the U.S. Supreme Court to define how far term limits can go is likely to be in response to a measure like Colorado’s. It limits how long members of the state delegation to Congress may serve: There is still a question of whether the U.S. Constitution sets the terms for Congress.

But there is now no doubt the states can set conditions for their legislatures. Proposition 140--as almost everyone in Sacramento is painfully aware--limited state senators to two four-year terms and members of the Assembly to three two-year terms. Once they have served the maximum, officeholders can never be in the same legislative body again.

Term limits are supposed to create turnover in a legislature and bring fresh ideas to government. But Proposition 140 also had mean-spirited provisions like that cutting legislative pensions; and these were rightly tossed out by the California Supreme Court.

THE PROBLEMS: Proposition 140 also took a meat-ax approach toward cutting government. It forced the Legislature to reduce its budget by more than a third, undoubtedly putting a few political hacks on legislative staffs out of work but also forcing the state to let go of many valuable employees who provided expert, nonpartisan advice. Among agencies that have suffered severe cutbacks as a result is the legislative analyst’s office--a key source of independent information on California’s multibillion-dollar budget.

Proposition 140 passed because many voters had come to see government as, at best, ineffective and distant. That public perception is one reason this newspaper endorsed Proposition 131--the more flexible version of term limits that appeared on the same ballot as 140. So now other states considering this reform are at an advantage: They can watch California to see how well legislative term limits work, and can avoid the elements of Proposition 140 that compelled the sad exodus of many dedicated professionals from government at a time when Sacramento needs all the dedication it can get.