Easing the Term Limits Box

There’s one place in California where recycling is total: the Capitol. That’s where legislators regularly repackage themselves and seek new life in another elective office because term limits force out both the effective and the ineffective at a fixed time. California’s term limits law is among the most restrictive in the nation, holding Assembly members to six years and state senators to eight years. It’s an automatic-pilot system of governance that doesn’t distinguish between political deadbeats and the best and brightest public servants.

State voters will face a measure on the March 5 primary ballot that would help provide a way out of the term limits box. Proposition 45 would allow legislators on the verge of being forced out to win a chance at an extension by collecting signatures of voters within their district.

The signature threshold is 20% of the total of votes in the most recent election for that office, the same amount it takes to force a recall election. Legislators gaining the required signatures still would have to stand for election in the traditional way.

This certainly is not the perfect way to deal with California’s term limits problems. It would be better to rid the state of term limits. But legislative leaders believe that voters would reject such a plan. They probably are correct. And any change in term limits requires a majority vote of the people because the limits are written into the state Constitution by voter approval. With no other realistic alternative available, we urge state voters to approve Proposition 45.

A major problem with term limits is that as soon as a member develops some experience in legislating and a solid background in an issue--the point at which their service becomes really valuable--they are bumped from office. This has upset the balance of power in Sacramento. And the office of governor, already one of the most powerful in the nation, has assumed even more clout over legislators.

With the end of their service bluntly visible, lawmakers look for quick victories. There’s little to gain politically by attempting to fix entrenched, complicated problems, such as the deplorable state of California’s infrastructure or the quagmire of the state-local finance system.

Proposition 45 was put on the March 5 ballot by initiative petition, an effort led by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) and supported by a variety of interest groups including big business and organized labor. The state Democratic Party has contributed $3 million to the campaign to pass 45. But the measure also has the backing of the League of Women Voters and the Sierra Club.

It’s assumed that the same interests that help get the lawmakers elected would also put up the money to help incumbents stay another term. That’s the system we have. But if Proposition 45 wins voter approval, the Legislature should pass a law making it absolutely clear that state contribution limits apply to the petition campaigns.

Term limits have done some good in California. There are more women and minorities in Sacramento now. A few incompetents were forced from office. Those benefits are far outweighed by the negative impact of the revolving door. Californians can keep term limits and make them more realistic by voting yes on Proposition 45.