Supervisors Move Toward Term Limits

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, whose five members represent one of the last bastions of resistance to term limits, is reluctantly planning to ask voters to hold them to three four-year terms in office.

The board is scheduled Tuesday to place two term limit measures on the March 2002 ballot--one to limit them to three terms and a wider one that would place similar limits on the three countywide elected officials: the assessor, district attorney and sheriff.

The action is part of a settlement of a lawsuit by a young activist who for nearly two years has been struggling to place a term limit initiative for supervisors before the voters.

With the backing of other term limit proponents, Christopher Skinnell had initially gathered enough signatures to place a two-term-limit measure on last November’s ballot. But the county registrar-recorder’s office, which reports to the supervisors, miscounted the number of signatures and refused to place it on the ballot.

County officials called it an honest mistake, but proponents were suspicious. They sued to force the board to place term limits on last year’s ballot but lost. Their next chance is the March 2002 elections, but first they entered months of negotiations with the county, which challenged the legality of their initiative.

County lawyers and others argue that only state action can limit the terms of county supervisors and that the ballot measure is therefore improper.

Skinnell refused to drop the matter but agreed to scale it back to a three-term limit rather than a two-term cap and to include other county elected officials in a separate measure. In exchange, he will not have to go through the expense of gathering signatures for a new initiative. The county also agreed not to file a legal challenge against the initiative, officials said.

“Twelve years is a little longer than I’d prefer,” said Skinnell, now a law student at the University of Chicago. But noting the longevity of supervisors’ political careers, he added: “It’s certainly better than 20 years or 24, or [former Supervisor] Kenneth Hahn’s 40 years.”

The post of supervisor is considered a virtual lifetime job because the board is nearly invulnerable at the polls. No elected supervisor has been defeated for reelection in the last 20 years, and the three up for reelection last year ran unopposed. Backers of the initiatives say term limits are the only way to ensure new views in county government.

All five supervisors oppose term limits, but in interviews Thursday, a majority said they supported the settlement.

Supervisor Gloria Molina said she was willing to let voters decide the issue, though she acknowledged that the issue is so popular that voters will probably approve it. “People instinctively want to see some changes,” Molina said.

Molina, who was elected to the board in 1991 and shook up the institution as a newcomer, said that some supervisors have been too comfortable because of their tenure. “But because you’ve been here a long time doesn’t make you stale, either,” she added.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who also agreed that any initiative would probably be backed by voters, said the new version is better. “If there’s going to be term limits, three terms make more sense than two.”

But Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke questioned whether voters would support limits on supervisorial terms. “People tend to think of their supervisor as someone who’s been there for a while,” she said.

And Supervisor Mike Antonovich, a 21-year veteran of the board, said he would oppose the settlement. “It ties the hands of the voters,” he said of term limits.

Although the county will not challenge the legality of the initiative under the settlement, other parties are free to do so. Attorney Steven Holguin, who represents unions, said he has been following the case and believes it could be challenged on constitutional grounds.

He said that in San Diego County, a voter-approved initiative that amended the County Charter to impose term limits was overturned in a court challenge that argued that the selection of county officials is governed by the state Constitution.