Should Law on Term Limits Be Overturned?

A U.S. District Court judge earlier this year ruled that Proposition 140, the term limits initiative passed in 1990, is unconstitutional.

At the invitation of the federal appeals panel reviewing the legality of the law, 19 past and current state legislators recently added their names to the lawsuit to overturn the measure, which, if upheld by the appeals court, could have a tremendous impact on the political scene in the San Fernando Valley in 1998.

Opponents of term limits cite citizens’ constitutional rights to vote for all qualified candidates, while those favoring the measure argue that the will of the majority of Californians should not be overturned.

Should the 1990 term limits law be overturned?

Doug Mirell, board member, ACLU:

“Perhaps the single most fundamental constitutional right enjoyed by all American citizens is the right to vote. It is impossible to imagine how citizens can exercise that precious right without the opportunity to choose among all qualified candidates for a particular elective office. By imposing artificial and arbitrary time constraints upon the length of individual legislators’ service, the initiative tramples upon the right to choose which candidates a voter wishes to support, and thereby infringes upon that most important of constitutional rights.”

Paula Boland, former Republican assemblywoman from the San Fernando Valley:

“The term limits law should probably not be overturned. It was passed by the initiative process, which is the vehicle of the people to get their wishes accomplished in this state . . . The people I talk to are frustrated with the initiative process being thwarted. When a measure is passed, it’s [delayed] by the courts . . . I felt there was much more I wanted to accomplish in of fice; six years wasn’t enough time. Yet I was more than willing to abide by the voters’ initiative that passed in 1990. I’m in favor of [that process], but by the same token, we don’t want to lose our good people.”

Richard Katz, former Democratic assemblyman from the San Fernando Valley:

“People get elected for a specific term. If they’re doing a good job, they get reelected. If they’re doing a bad job, voters should vote them out. The voters in someone’s district should decide how long he or she should be in office. Term limits doesn’t guarantee any quality of representation. There are people who should be in office more than six years, and there are people who shouldn’t be there six months. All term limits ensures is that they won’t be there long.”

Deborah La Fetra, senior attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation:

“California’s term limits has been a huge success. Incumbents used to coast to reelection without worrying about challengers. Since term limits leveled the playing field, the number of challengers dramatically increased, resulting in greater political opportunity and accountability. Better yet, term limits are fully constitutional. They expand voters’ choices in candidates and promote fresh voices and ideas in public office. Every voter has a right to vote for any qualified candidate; term limits, like age and residency, is a qualification that benefits the body politic.”