Term Limit Measures Measure Up : * Despite Confusion From Ruling, 4 Cities’ Proposals Deserve Approval

The public cannot be blamed if it finds the medley of local term limit proposals somewhat confusing this year. And clarity hardly was advanced when a 4th District Court of Appeal ruling landed right in the middle of the campaign. It invalidated term limit laws in three of the county’s general law cities and had a bearing on several now on the ballot.

Even with the confusion over what cities can and can’t do, term limits often vary in quality. We prefer to examine them on a case-by-case basis, and, by the way, have argued previously that the Legislature should at least adopt a law allowing term limits in the general law cities that want them.

And make no mistake--the public seems very much in the mood to consider term limits as a way of bringing fresh ideas to government. In fact, rotation in office is not a new concept. But the passage of state Proposition 140, which limited the terms of state legislators, has put a number of proposals in Orange County cities on the fast track.

In all, there are five, two of them in charter cities--Anaheim and Newport Beach--which therefore have the latitude now to adopt term limits. There are three in general law cities as well: Orange, Westminster and Yorba Linda.

Anaheim’s Measure A: This binding measure would limit service to eight years, and lets a person run again after sitting out two years. This is an acceptable term limit provision and should pass.

Newport Beach’s Measure P: As in Anaheim, this is a binding measure in a charter city. It would limit officeholders to two consecutive four-year terms and allow them to run again after sitting out a term. It too should pass.

Orange’s Measure R: Any binding term limit in this general law city must be enacted by the Legislature. This vote is advisory. It specifies a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms for council and three consecutive two-year terms for mayor. Vote “yes,” pending action by the Legislature.

Westminster’s Measure V: It too is a general law city and only the state can enact term limits. So, this is an advisory vote only. Again, a “yes” vote is acceptable, pending action by the Legislature.

Yorba Linda’s Measure X: This ballot measure is moot. Yorba Linda, as a general law city, cannot enact its own term limits. The measure calls for limits of three consecutive four-year terms with a clause allowing candidates to run again after being out two years. But it says that because the city has no authority, the initiative will go into effect only if the Legislature passes enabling legislation on or before Jan. 1, 1993. That is unlikely to happen. Vote “no.”

All the local term limit measures but Yorba Linda’s, which is rendered meaningless by the recent court decision, are acceptable attempts to bring about term rotation.