State Joins Near Sweep for Term Limits

Delivering an unmistakable message to career politicians, Californians on Tuesday joined at least a dozen other states in slapping term limits on their representatives in Congress.

In a clear display of their thirst for political turnover, California voters heartily approved Proposition 164, a measure that would restrict House members to three terms in office and U.S. senators to two.

Elsewhere, unofficial election results showed term limit initiatives passing by lopsided margins in Ohio, Nebraska, Montana, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan and Oregon. In Missouri, Wyoming and Florida, the margin was more than 3 to 1, and a similar measure appeared to be headed for victory in Washington.

Jubilant over what looked to be a 14-state sweep, supporters said Tuesday’s results amount to a national referendum on term limits and will pave the way for sweeping reforms in Washington.

“I am thoroughly convinced that a reconstituted Congress--in which careerism and self-perpetuation in office become secondary to representing one’s constituents--can bring about major change,” said former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, a leading proponent of Proposition 164.

While conceding that the new laws are sure to draw a legal challenge, Schabarum said momentum from Tuesday’s results will ultimately force Congress to consider a constitutional amendment on term limits, perhaps making a court ruling moot.

Opponents said they were not surprised by the results, but they warned that term limits would put California at a severe disadvantage in the sweepstakes for federal funding and positions of influence in Congress.

“When we can only serve six years and others can serve 30 . . . we’ll have no chairmanships, no positions in leadership,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands, a Republican who was reelected Tuesday to an eighth term. “Our taxpayers will be greatly harmed by it.”

Like the other 13 term limit measures passed Tuesday, California’s law is not retroactive. The clock begins ticking in January. House members would be permitted to serve through 1998, and U.S. senators through 2004.

The battle over Proposition 164 was surprisingly subdued, overshadowed by the spirited presidential election, many neck-and-neck congressional races and the campaigns to pick California’s two U.S. senators.

Its natural foes--incumbent politicians--were mostly silent on the issue, fearful that they would seem self-serving by fighting a proposal that sought to shorten their careers. In light of the scandals tainting Congress, opponents also were hard-pressed to argue that Proposition 164 would make things worse.

The relative calm, however, masked passionate disagreements over the perils and benefits of curbing the tenure of California’s officeholders in Washington.

Supporters--who ranged from conservatives to consumer advocate Ralph Nader--draped their pleas in the colors of old-fashioned populism. Declaring term limits a tonic for the ills that ail Congress, they described the initiative as a way to revitalize government by replacing career politicians with citizen legislators in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln.

Backers, lamenting the fact that 96% of congressional incumbents were reelected in 1990, depicted term limits as a tool for shattering the campaign advantage enjoyed by officeholders. If representatives went to Washington knowing that they would soon return to the rank of commoner, they would remain immune to Potomac fever and the temptations of special interests, the Yes on 164 campaign said.

A coalition of unlikely bedfellows--including California Common Cause, the Sierra Club, the California Manufacturers Assn. and a few anti-tax groups--led a dogged but poorly funded fight against the measure.

While expressing sympathy for voters’ desire for congressional reform, they warned that term limits would rob California of the seniority its representatives need to land committee chairmanships and compete with other states for federal goodies.

Opponents also suggested that naive and inexperienced citizen legislators would be putty in the hands of the lobbyists and bureaucrats who would come to rule Washington.

Others advanced a philosophical argument: Restricting terms, they said, is too high a price to pay for restricting voters’ freedom to elect whom they choose.

Supporters of Proposition 164 handily won the fund-raising competition, collecting more than $1.6 million, compared to the $186,468 taken in by opponents. The big money on the opposition side came from BankAmerica Corp., Southern California Edison and Pacific Telesis Group, which each gave $25,000.

Late in the campaign, proponents acknowledged that more than 40% of their money came from U.S. Term Limits, a Washington-based group with ties to the Libertarian Party. Critics said the funding source undermined the argument that the term limits movement was driven by outraged voters.

The notion of term limits has hovered on the fringe of national politics for many years. Its recent popularity, scholars say, can be traced to mounting cynicism about politicians and their effectiveness, anxiety over the growing influence of special interests and scandals involving lawmakers and institutions such as the House bank.

In 1990, Colorado became the first state to pass congressional term limits. The same year, Californians adopted Proposition 140--a bitterly fought measure restricting the tenures of state legislators beginning in 1996. Oklahoma also approved limits on its state lawmakers.

Those victories ignited a juggernaut that has roared across the country. Last year, the movement suffered a jolt when Washington state voters rejected a term limits law that most predicted would pass.

But experts say the Washington measure was too strict, and the term limit troops were not deterred. In addition to the 14 states voting on restrictions this year, most others have some movement afoot.