COMMENTARY ON TERM LIMITS : What’s Good for the State Would Be Good for the Cities Too : Local municipalities are showing the way to more representative self-rule. The voters will have more choice, not less.

A growing number of Orange County cities have realized that if term limits are a good idea for state officeholders, they might be a good idea for local elected officials as well.

Term limit proposals for city council members are currently on the agenda in Anaheim and Orange; term limit initiatives will be on the ballot later this year in Dana Point and Yorba Linda. Generally, these proposals will limit elected officials to two or three successive four-year terms. If approved, these cities will join seven other term-limit cities in Orange County.

The idea of term limits for local officials is taking hold all over the county as it is across the nation. Dozens of major cities have adopted term limits in the last two years, most prominently San Jose, Kansas City, Mo., Houston, Cincinnati, Syracuse, N.Y., Colorado Springs, Colo., Rockville, Md., and Jacksonville, Fla.

But no other region of the country is moving as quickly to limit the terms of local officials as is Orange County.

No surprise here, Orange County voters overwhelmingly supported Prop. 140 in 1990; 60% to a statewide favorable vote of only 52%.

As a means to check the abuse of public power, increase the opportunity for citizens to serve in public office and enhance the quality of political representation, term limits or the principle of “rotation in office” was considered key to the design of representative democracy by America’s revolutionaries.

Along with the principle of frequent elections, rotation in office is deeply rooted in the development of democratic political institutions and is squarely within the American political tradition. John Adams and Thomas Paine, along with Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln were devoted advocates of rotation in office.

The case for state and national term limits is easy to make, as the sordid events in the U.S. House of Representatives illustrate of late. The need for term limits at city hall is no less immediate and the benefits even more compelling.

The need for term limits stems from the low rates of legislative turnover and from strong feelings of frustration with the stalemate of permanent government.

Professional politicians are too often removed from and insensitive to the needs of their constituents. Career enhancement and personal aggrandizement come first, with the public interest only an afterthought.

At first blush, we might think turnover isn’t much of a problem in Orange County city halls. Yet, a recent survey of local elected officials in Orange County shows that 35% have already served for more than eight years, with 25% serving for 12 or more.

By comparison, 69% of the House of Representatives has served for eight or more years and 38% for 14 or more. While turnover is higher in Orange County city halls than in the House, the difference is much less than commonly acknowledged.

Like the House, Orange County has its honor roll of entrenched incumbents. Serving from the ‘70s into the ‘90s, for example, have been Newport Beach’s Don Strauss and Evelyn R. Hart, Yorba Linda’s Irwin M. Fried and Henry W. Wedaa, and Orange’s Fred L. Barrera.

Serving throughout most of the ‘80s and into the ‘90s are Anaheim’s Irv Pickler, Fullerton’s Richard C. Ackerman and A.B. (Buck) Catlin, Laguna Beach’s Neil G. Fitzpatrick, Santa Ana’s Daniel E. Griset and Tustin’s Richard B. Edgar as examples.

Local term limits aren’t just about “throwing the rascals out.” They’re about giving more people the opportunity for public service at a level that’s imaginable, feasible and highly salient to the quality of daily life. Few citizens will ever seriously contemplate running for a state or national office, but many could run for city council. Opportunity becomes a reality with the turnover produced by term limits.

New faces bring new ideas. Moreover, through the Aristotelian principle of “ruling and being ruled in turn,” new officeholders bring the expectations of the governed directly to the travails of governing. The quality of representation is enhanced by the expectation that an individual can both be a representative and represented; citizens educated firsthand in the art of self-government is another beneficial result.

There is no better place to encourage these salutary effects than the institutions of local politics.

Opponents argue that term limits rob voters of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is sheer nonsense, reflecting a serious misunderstanding of constitutional law.

Federal courts recognize that “no right is more precious in a free society than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws.” But, a voter does “not have a fundamental right to vote for a particular candidate, but is simply guaranteed an equal voice in election of those who govern.” Moreover, the Supreme Court has upheld a range of restrictions on candidate eligibility and has not recognized a right to candidacy.

No one’s right to have a voice in candidate selection is robbed, nor is a candidate’s ability to run unconstitutionally infringed upon by term limits. The California Supreme Court’s conclusion in the Prop. 140 case, recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, is instructive: “On balance, we conclude the interests of the state in incumbency reform outweigh any injury to incumbent officeholders and those who would vote for them.”

Rather than threatening the rights of voters and candidates or damaging democracy, “as a general rule,” reasoned the state Supreme Court, “the overall health of the body politic is enhanced by limitations on continuous tenure.”

City term limits is a prudent and wise course to follow as we strive to rediscover and recover first principles of democratic self-rule.