A Chance to Stretch Their Limits

A rare opportunity for real political reform has been handed the Legislature and governor because of a federal judge’s ruling that California’s term limits are unconstitutional.

There is little in the recent history of these two institutions, however, to engender optimism that they will seize the moment. Rather, they have a history of freezing like deer in headlights when facing momentous events.

Two decades ago, they could have enacted practical property tax relief and avoided the excessive Proposition 13. This decade, Democrats failed to hear the public’s outcry against illegal immigration and invited the passage of harsh Proposition 187. And when the lawmakers failed to react suitably to the FBI’s ferreting out of Capitol corruption, voters smacked them with Proposition 140’s term limits.

Now, the politicians have been given a second chance. Here’s why:

Democrats and many Republicans will want--or, at least, they should want--a special state election next November to offer voters a new, more legislator-friendly term limit law. If approved, the revised term limits would be in place for the 1998 regular elections. They could extend the careers of several legislators, including the two “termed out” house leaders--Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno) and Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward).

Gov. Pete Wilson, however, will balk at calling the special election. His strategic endorsement of Proposition 140 in 1990 helped him get elected. Now he’s goosey about seemingly going soft on term limits. He suspects voters still prefer the original law, which the judge let stand pending court appeals. The governor is inclined to wait out the appeals in hopes that the initial ruling will be overturned. If not, he knows somebody will sponsor a Proposition 140 look-alike, stripped only of the flawed “lifetime ban” provision that forbids termed-out lawmakers from ever again running for seats in their old house.

But I’ve got a hunch, based on talks with Wilson insiders, that the Republican governor may be willing to dicker.

*

GOP governors and legislators long have wanted to strip the Legislature of its redistricting power. That’s because Democrats have controlled the Legislature for the past four decennial reapportionments. Whenever Democrats also held the governor’s office, Republicans suffered from partisan gerrymandering. GOP governors, however, simply vetoed the Democratic redistricting bills and handed the chore to the state Supreme Court.

Even Democrats grudgingly admit that the court’s 1991 reapportionment was relatively fair.

Wilson and GOP lawmakers would like to permanently turn over redistricting to a nonpartisan--or at least bipartisan--commission. Perhaps a panel of retired judges. Voters rejected such a proposal in 1984 after Democrats waged a demagogic campaign claiming it would politicize the judiciary. They later paid. More than anything else, their blatant distortion inspired the Republican enthusiasm for term limits.

Now the GOP governor and Democratic Legislature both have political leverage. Each can offer something the other wants. Democrats (and privately many Republicans) want a special election to propose sensible term limits. Wilson wants a permanent system of fair reapportionment.

Combined, realistic term limits and fair redistricting would serve the public’s interest in assuring that incumbent legislators don’t get too entrenched; that new blood periodically is pumped into the Capitol.

*

Realistic term limits would mean something like what a state Constitution Revision Commission proposed last year: three four-year stints in each house and no lifetime ban. The present limits--three two-year terms in the Assembly, two four-year tours in the Senate--are ridiculously impractical.

Term limits have brought bright, energetic new legislators to the Capitol. But largely because of their inexperience in legislating--as opposed to merely mouthing rhetoric--the Assembly, in particular, often resembles amateur hour, if not a playground for preschoolers. To get its money’s worth, the public should keep potentially skilled lawmakers on the job for more than six or eight years.

Also, there was one mean-spirited feature of Proposition 140 that should be rectified. New legislators now are barred from pension plans. They should be entitled to the same pension benefits as other state employees. That seems only American.

At the same time, they should be barred from the American political practice of gerrymandering.

There’s negotiating room here if the pols don’t again act like blinded deer. Unfortunately, that’s their natural instinct.