Term Limits: Confusion Reigns Supreme : Another court ruling validates state law override of local efforts to reform government

Once again, the legality of local term-limit measures in this state is in total confusion. Next year the Legislature has got to face up to the problem and clarify this mess.

The latest blow to sanity came from the 4th District Court of Appeal, in a case brought by the city of La Palma in Orange County. The court, saying that state law had to be held paramount, in effect declared term-limit measures in so-called general-law cities illegal. That ruling, which impacts Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego counties, overturns numerous municipal term-limit laws and could doom others on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The court’s finding drives home the need for state legislation to clear the way for cities to enact local term-limit laws.

Such legislation was proposed earlier this year by state Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), but was stalled in the Assembly Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee. Many state lawmakers are still so angry about passage of Proposition 140, which among other things limits legislative terms, that the mere mention of term limits triggers little but fury.

But sheer negativism isn’t responsible government. Cities and other government entities have signaled their strong desire to impose term limits. The Legislature should not deny them the right to choose.

Term limits are enjoying popularity because people are concerned about the quality of their representation and figure, rightly or wrongly, that term limits will work where open-ended terms haven’t. Term limits alone cannot be expected to deliver on an implied promise to clean up government. That will take more than bringing in new blood, such as getting a handle on the amount of money needed to run for office and on the influence of special interests on the elective process.

But term limits may be worth a try because they may open the door to fresh ideas. That can be especially true in local government, even though city councils and county boards of supervisors are often part-time positions. The best of the term-limit laws are those that would allow officeholders to run again after sitting out an election cycle, thus giving voters the option to bring back someone who has served especially well.

Last week’s ruling by the appeals court affects only general-law cities. By contrast, charter cities, which have “home rule,” are thought to be in a separate category and thus can legally impose term limits. Maybe not. Last January, a state legislative counsel’s opinion concluded that it would be unconstitutional even for a charter city to impose term limits.

Efforts to clear up this legal morass should be a priority for the Legislature when it reconvenes in January.