A Term-Limit ‘Reform’ That Hurts California : Why Prop. 164 is no answer to the state’s problems

Proposition 164, on the statewide ballot Nov. 3, was born of the frustration with political gridlock and incumbent inertia. But it should die from exposure to sunlight and reason. It is a solution to nothing and could cause enormous problems for California--it’s practically a formula for California’s unilateral political disarmament in Washington.

THE BACKGROUND: Some good ideas, once born, quickly take on a life of their own. Term limits for elected officials is one of those notions. Clearly there’s a national sentiment growing for limiting the time a legislator can remain in office. But term-limit measures must be designed so that they don’t undercut the goal of better government. Unfortunately Proposition 164, which would impose term limits on members of the state’s congressional delegation, would lead to less effective government.

Term-limit proposals are not new to California. In 1990, voters had the choice between two state term-limit initiatives, one reasonable, one drastic. Unfortunately, by passing Proposition 140 the voters imposed lifetime term limits on most elected officials and severe budget cuts on the Legislature. That same year, Colorado became the first state to impose term limits on its federal representatives. Two years later, California is one of 14 states that is considering following Colorado’s lead.

Proponents argue that federal term limits are just what’s needed to break the policy gridlock in Washington. And, indeed, it is painfully obvious that the policy process has not gone very far toward addressing such self-evident challenges as ensuring that all Americans have quality health care, rebuilding decaying cities and avoiding bank catastrophes.

THE ANSWER: But is this term-limit measure the answer? No. If, as its proponents argue, it would bring “change” in Washington, would that change necessarily be for the good?

Beginning in January, 1993, Proposition 164, an initiative statute that requires a simple majority to pass, would limit service in the House to six consecutive years and in the Senate to 12 consecutive years.

If Proposition 164 passed, California would be among the states imposing the shortest term of congressional service. The six-year limit alone would severely impair California’s influence in Congress. If federal term limits make sense, the same limit should apply to all states. Otherwise the political playing field in Washington won’t be level: 35 other states are not currently considering congressional term limits, which means California’s clout relative to other large and influential states, including Texas and New York, could be severely undercut.

With 47 members, California already has the largest delegation in Congress. In January, the number will go up to 54, due to population growth and reapportionment. Unfortunately, this state’s delegation has not always wielded clout commensurate with its size because it has lacked unity, but unilaterally imposing short term limits will make the task that much harder.

Term limits will definitely guarantee rotation in office. That, by itself, is a highly desirable goal in a democracy. But absent thorough campaign spending reform, term limits may simply produce rotation among the same sort of candidates who currently run--that is, individuals financially able to take time off from careers or likely to draw special-interest money because those interests see value in their election. Proposition 164 does absolutely nothing to make it possible for men and women of ordinary means to have an equal shot against better-heeled opponents.

Voters should be frustrated with policy gridlock in Washington as well as in Sacramento. And while term limits in some reasonable form may be part of the answer, they are not the only answer. Because Proposition 164 relies on term limits as the sole answer, we urge a “no” vote.