A New Look at Term Limits

Assemblyman Lou Papan (D-Millbrae) has offered a unique proposal in the name of campaign finance reform. It’s a constitutional amendment that would extend the length of members’ terms in the Assembly from two years to four and in the Senate from four years to six. Papan’s reasoning is that lawmakers would not have to raise nearly so much money if they didn’t have to run for office so often.

In the process, of course, Papan’s proposed constitutional amendment (ACA 21) would automatically expand the state’s term limit law, which was passed by voters as Proposition 140 in 1990. Proposition 140 limited Assembly members to three terms and senators to two--a total of six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate. Papan’s amendment would allow all members to serve as long as 12 years in each house.

The effect would be the same as that proposed at the end of 1996 in the final report of the California Constitution Revision Commission. The commission, however, would have had all legislators serving four-year terms with a limit of three terms each, a total of 12 years. Papan’s proposal is better in that it presents a premium for serving in the Senate, the longer term.

Few in Sacramento will argue that Proposition 140 is benefiting California in the manner its authors promised. There is constant turnover, frequent changes in leadership and a loss of institutional memory and experience.

When term limits were first proposed, the experts predicted they would enhance the power and influence of the legislative staff, presumably offsetting the loss of veteran legislators’ experience. That has not happened.

Papan argues convincingly that the term-limits turnover has triggered damaging consequences for the legislative staff. Scores of knowledgeable legislative aides have left the Capitol for more secure careers elsewhere, often to work for special interest groups in their dealings with the Legislature.

Papan’s proposal lacks the support needed for passage, largely because a number of lawmakers who privately acknowledge that term limits are not working are politically wary of supporting any change now. This is an important issue and should be debated in the Legislature and possibly put on the ballot so voters can decide.