Prop. 45 Said to Favor Democrats

Proposition 45, an initiative to tweak California’s strict term-limits law, would heavily favor Democratic incumbents over Republicans seeking to extend their tenure in the state Legislature, GOP leaders say.

The measure on the March 5 ballot would allow lawmakers to seek four more years in office if they can gather the signatures of 20% of the voters who cast ballots in prior elections. But because voter turnout is significantly higher in GOP-controlled districts, on average, most Republican incumbents would face a more significant hurdle.

“It is clearly a Democrat plan, one-sided and designed to skirt the term-limit law,” California GOP Chairman Shawn Steel said.

The term-limits initiative approved by voters in 1990 restricts Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms. Proposition 45 would permit senators to serve a third four-year term, and Assembly members to serve two more two-year terms, so long as they gather enough signatures and win at the polls.

Some Republican incumbents assume they would be able to meet the signature requirement, even though they would have a tougher threshold than Democrats.

And some critics of Proposition 45 blame Republican lawmakers, many of whom dislike term limits, for dissuading the party from spending any money to defeat the initiative, a contention that some party leaders dispute. Still, though the GOP opposes Proposition 45, the party has spent no money to defeat it.

“We are financially challenged,” Steel said, adding that with Democrats holding most statewide offices, the GOP in California struggles for money.

“We don’t have it.”

The California Democratic Party, by contrast, is the largest donor to the Yes-on-45 campaign, contributing $3.2 million of the roughly $10 million raised by the initiative’s proponents. With Democrats already holding 50 of 80 seats in the Assembly and 26 of 40 Senate seats, the initiative could help solidify Democrats’ hold on the Legislature, simply because of the difficulty of unseating incumbents.

The turnout-based signature requirement is an additional, more subtle, burden, Republicans contend.

If Proposition 45 had been in place this year, Assembly Democrats would have needed to gather an average of 22,965 valid signatures to win the right to run for two more two-year terms. Republicans would have needed an average of 29,577 signatures. State senators, whose districts are twice the size of Assembly seats, would have to gather roughly twice as many signatures.

Karin Caves, spokeswoman for the Yes-on-45 campaign, called the turnout issue “completely inconsequential” and said the initiative is simply aimed at granting voters the right to reelect legislators who represent them well.

“Legislators doing a good job will have a good chance of gathering signatures,” Caves said. “The difference is marginal. There is no Democratic advantage. Republicans eligible for an extension will stand just as good a chance as Democrats.”

Still, Republicans represent five of the six Assembly districts where turnout was highest in the 2000 election, and 12 of the 20 highest-turnout districts. Democrats control the 19 seats with the lowest turnout two years ago.

At the low end, outgoing Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, a Democrat who represents downtown Los Angeles, would have needed a mere 7,626 signatures, or 20% of the 38,130 voters who cast ballots in his district in the 2000 election.

At the high end is Assemblyman Tim Leslie, a Republican who represents a sprawling district that includes Tahoe City and where 216,336 voters cast ballots two years ago. He would have needed 43,267 signatures to meet the 20% hurdle.

One reason for the difference is that though each lawmaker represents about 423,000 people, Cedillo’s district, like those held by many urban Democrats, is home to a large number of recent immigrants who are not citizens and cannot vote.

No fan of California’s strict term-limits law, Leslie extended his legislative career by returning to the lower house after serving two senate terms. But though he might support a more direct ballot measure asking voters to extend lawmakers’ tenures by another term or two, Leslie called Proposition 45 a “Democrat-dreamed-up scheme ... to maintain incumbent Democrats.”

To obtain the necessary signatures, candidates could use volunteers or hire firms that specialize in circulating petitions. Either way, there is a cost. Firms that mount statewide initiative petition drives charge at least $1 per signature, and often far more.

Outgoing Assemblyman Roderick Wright (D-Los Angeles) assumes that signatures would cost $3 to $5 each. If Proposition 45’s provisions were in place now, Wright would need to gather 11,885 valid signatures for a fourth term, based on his district’s turnout in 2000.

If Wright’s cost estimate is accurate, the price tag would be $35,600 to $59,400.

Backers of Proposition 45 say campaign contribution caps imposed by an initiative approved in 2000 would apply to candidates’ petition drives. Opponents doubt that the limits would apply.

But if they did, and individuals could give no more than $3,000 to a candidate’s effort, Wright assumes that his replacement would need to tap about 20 donors to pay for the petition drive. That is not an insurmountable hurdle for any lawmaker.

“It’s just that much more money you need,” said Wright, who spent about $150,000 on his last campaign.

The obstacle is much greater in many Republican-controlled districts. At $5 per signature, Leslie could be looking at a cost of $216,000, roughly double what he has in his campaign account. The state senator representing that area would have to gather twice that number of signatures to qualify for a third four-year term.

The task is complicated because Leslie’s district, like many held by Republicans, covers a vast area with few population centers. Sen. Rico Oller (R-San Andreas), whose district runs from near Bishop to the Oregon border and is larger than West Virginia, would have to gather about 75,000 signatures.

Oller called the task “virtually impossible.”

“Just think of the logistics: You’d have to go to Alturas, Mammoth Lakes, Roseville, Angel’s Camp, Chico,” Oller said. “It’s an abuse of Republicans.”