Term-Limitation Measures Go Local : Anti-incumbency fever is spreading

State legislative term limits may not prove to be the silver bullet voters obviously want them to be. But, without a doubt, they will sweep out some of the cobwebs in Sacramento. That same fresh-air appeal has fostered a term-limit movement at local levels.

Indeed, long before Proposition 140, the state term-limits measure that was passed in November, 1990, voters in many California cities and counties were instituting terms limits. Now the fever is catching.

Local term-limit laws, however, remain of dubious legality. In an attempt to clear up the issue, state Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) has introduced legislation that would allow--although not mandate--limits to be imposed by voters on representatives of cities, counties, community college districts, school districts, county school boards and special districts. Kopp’s measure, and a similar one by Assemblyman Dean Andal (R-Stockton), would help reduce confusion by spelling out the legal authority for voters to adopt local term-limit measures.

CLARIFYING THE LAW: The legislative counsel’s office recently concluded that charter cities and counties, such as Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, could not impose limits because the state Constitution alone sets qualifications for local office. General-law cities and counties, such as Orange County, which operate directly under state law instead of individual charters, were not even included in the legal analysis because it was assumed that they lacked authority to impose term limits.

Thus there’s a need for clarifying state legislation that will make term limits a local-control issue.

At the state level the way was cleared for Proposition 140 when it was upheld by the state Supreme Court and then was let stand by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month. That means the limits--three two-year terms for Assembly members, two four-year terms for state senators and two four-year terms for all statewide officers except the insurance commissioner--will take effect.

For the record, The Times endorsed an alternative measure, Proposition 131, on the same ballot because it would have imposed less restrictive term limits.

SOUNDING A MESSAGE: Californians, by choosing the more Draconian measure, obviously wanted their state lawmakers to get the message that they were mad as hell. Adoption followed the disclosure of corruption scandals in Sacramento and widespread publicity about legislative inaction on the budget and many other important issues.

But there seems to be another message from the electorate as well. Voters clearly want “citizen” politicians who move in--and then out--of public service. They fear, with ample justification, that politicians who get too comfortable in office are less interested in public policy than they are in special interests or their own careers.

Like it or not, legislators must listen up. Clearing the legal path at the local-government level will allow voters to decide on term limits for themselves.