Term Limits’ Dark Side

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors got itself caught in a political box and now is being forced to place a term limits proposal on the primary election ballot next March. That’s too bad, because term limits rarely solve any of the problems that critics of government think they do. The good news for the supervisors is that the limit would be three terms, or 12 years, rather than the two terms that was sought in a citizens’ initiative campaign.

It is true that term limits have brought a fresh blast of change to the Los Angeles City Council. But over time, problems appear. They have been a disaster in the state Legislature, especially in the Assembly. Members barely learn the fundamentals of lawmaking before they are forced from the body. The limit is eight years in the Senate and just six in the Assembly, three two-year terms. There is constant churn in Assembly membership and staff, and the institutional memory is vanishing.

Nevertheless, term limits remain popular with voters, and the three-term measure that the supervisors will propose is likely to pass. Passage is probable also for a companion measure putting limits on three other elected county officials: the sheriff, district attorney and assessor.

The five members of the Board of Supervisors each represent about 2 million residents. Rarely does a sitting supervisor face much of an election challenge. Last year, three incumbents ran uncontested--not a single opposition candidate.

But term limits are a simplistic response. The real problem is that the board is too small, providing each member with extraordinary power and the ability to raise campaign war chests that discourage opponents from running. Repeated attempts to enlarge the board to nine or even seven members have failed, but the expansion effort should continue.

There is some legal question whether the board has the authority to put the term limit measure on the ballot or whether that can be done only by the Legislature. The county’s credibility on this issue already is strained. Term limit proponents filed an initiative petition for a vote on a two-term limit last November. But the registrar-recorder’s office, which reports to the Board of Supervisors, miscounted the number of signatures and wrongly refused to place the measure on the ballot. The three-term proposal emerged from a negotiated settlement of that issue.

Term limits have stayed popular with voters even as the damage they do in preventing leadership and expertise from developing becomes more evident. But the real mystery is why politicians, the ones with the most to lose from term limits, can’t see the link to campaign finance reform. Cleaner elections and less big-money influence on officeholders would help halt a pervasive and justified cynicism among those who vote--and those who no longer bother.