This ‘Reform’ Assures a Do-Little Legislature

Whether we like it or not, it’s time to review California’s term limits system. A federal court has ruled that the state’s term limit law is unconstitutional. The judge pointed specifically to the provision that bans a legislator from running for an office after serving the allowable number of terms. The decision has been stayed and no doubt will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1990, the voters approved Proposition 140, which limited the terms of legislators to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. The measure also limited the governor and 10 other elected officials to two four-year terms. Proposition 140 included a lifetime ban on running for the same office after all of the terms were served.

One of the objectives of the initiative was to end “careerism” in the Legislature. This system allowed a legislator to go virtually unchallenged by drawing legislative districts that benefited incumbents and by maintaining a campaign finance system that gave advantage to incumbents. Arguably, the voters did not intend to establish a Legislature that had no continuity in the law-making process or that had such a high turnover that nothing would get done.

The Assembly is a good case in point. Of its 80 members, 67 have been elected since 1994; 30 of them in 1996. This may account, at least in part, for very little being accomplished thus far in the legislative session that began in January.

The California Constitution Revision Commission is the only group that has reviewed term limits. The 23-member commission was established in 1994 to, among other things, examine the structure of state government and propose modifications to increase accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. The commission studied a wide range of activities of state and local government and made its recommendations to the Legislature last spring. A majority of the commission concluded that there is a rationale for limiting terms. The voters should be able to make adjustments in the operation of the legislative branch as well as the other branches of state government. However, the commission also found Proposition 140’s limits on terms too restrictive. The commission held that three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate are insufficient to produce an effective legislative body, one capable of dealing with the state’s pressing problems.

At its best, lawmaking is the art of reconciling differing opinions in full view of the public. This process is supposed to take time, and the time we have given legislators is simply too short. Of 22 states that limit terms, California’s terms are among the shortest.

The commission concluded that the shortness of time available for service has resulted in significant instability within the Legislature.

Linda R. Cohen, a UC Irvine economics professor, produced a startling statistic that helped convince the commission members that they were on the right path. “In the long run,” she wrote in an article, “the share of Assembly members serving their first two years will always exceed one-third and is likely to approach one-half.” To put the numbers in perspective: The Assembly has 27 standing (permanent) policy committees. Under close partisan division, as currently exists in the Legislature, if the majority party wants to keep control, some freshmen will chair important committees from their first day in Sacramento.

The commission recommended that legislative terms be amended so legislators could serve three four-year terms. The terms would be staggered so that one-half of each house would stand for election every two years. The new term limits would take effect prospectively, so that no sitting legislator would benefit from (be eligible for) the longer terms.

Having Assembly and Senate members serving the same number of years is not a new idea. Four states have the same length of service in both houses of their legislature. Staggering the terms would result in a senator or assemblymember standing for election in each district every two years.

Lengthening the terms of office would bring greater stability to the Legislature and still maintain the voters’ ability to change a representative every two years. This recommendation would improve accountability by bringing increased stability to the institution through longer terms of office while maintaining the connection between citizens and their representatives.