Limiting Term Limits

In its first nine years, California’s 1990 term limits law achieved its most immediate goal, sweeping away the old order in the Legislature. No longer is the Legislature dominated by entrenched politicians who serve for decades, relishing the trappings and benefits of power. Among the departed is the pol who was held up by sponsors of the term limits initiative, Proposition 140, as the prime example of officeholder excess, longtime Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. The cause of term limits was not harmed by his frequent boast that he was the “ayatollah of the Legislature.” Brown was quick to land on another public payroll, and he announced this month that he will seek a second term as mayor of San Francisco.

In their zeal to create a Legislature of temporary citizen politicians in the image of the founding fathers, the authors of the initiative reached too far. By setting the most restrictive limits in the nation, they saddled California with a Legislature that is in constant turnover, turmoil and political agitation. The problem is most acute in the 80-member Assembly, where members are limited to three two-year terms. By the time they have learned to be good legislators--and there are some very good ones--they are forced to plot their next move, often a run for the state Senate or other office.

The impact is less in the Senate, where members can serve two four-year terms. The Senate is by far the more experienced and effective house since all but six of 40 members have served in the Assembly. Experience does count. A lifetime limit of eight years is short for a deliberative legislative body.

Now that the drawbacks in term limits are obvious, the Legislature should consider proposing a change to the voters. There will be no outright repeal. Term limits clearly remain popular. But California would benefit from liberalization of the limits such as that proposed by Assemblyman Lou Papan (D-Millbrae): three four-year terms for Assembly members and two six-year terms for senators.

One benefit of longer terms would be that lawmakers could spend less time raising money for their next election. But the major argument for change is delivery of a better legislative product. A Legislature less hobbled by pressure to score immediate political points would be better able to consider the state’s long-range needs.

Papan does not have the two-thirds support needed to win Assembly approval for his measure, ACA 2, in part because a number of legislators are politically wary of supporting a change that they privately acknowledge would be a good thing. Reluctant lawmakers and skeptical voters need to look at the evidence and see that more moderate term limits would work to the state’s benefit.