Loosening Term Limits: Key Lies in Honest Remapping

As the new Legislature convened last week, one lawmaker stood in the back of the Assembly chamber, looked out over his colleagues and observed: “For many people here, their horizon is one year. And these are the visionaries.”

This assemblyman did not want to be identified slamming the short-range, issue-du-jour thinking of his cohorts, whose votes he’ll need to pass bills. He’s a comparative veteran, with all of four years legislative experience.

The current draconian term limits -- six years in the Assembly, eight in the Senate -- have weakened the Legislature by curtailing the development of strong leaders and policy experts, leaving lawmakers more vulnerable to special interests. The politicians also have become more distracted by ambition, perpetually plotting their next office, like antsy children playing musical chairs.

The old legislative system, before term limits, had its flaws. But it did produce lawmakers with policy expertise who had long-range views of California’s needs and institutional pride in the Legislature.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson conceded to me last fall that term limits “have not achieved their announced purpose. The purpose of term limits was to bring a different kind of legislator to Sacramento, one more representative of the community, not a political professional.”

Wilson strongly supported term limits when they were approved by voters in 1990, but now thinks they “probably could use some adjustment.”

So it was encouraging Wednesday to read Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comments to the San Diego Union-Tribune. The newspaper reported that Schwarzenegger disclosed he was open to loosening term limits, perhaps as part of a deal to reform the redrawing of legislative and congressional districts.

“We never really create someone that is an expert in anything in Sacramento because, before you become an expert, you are out,” the governor said.

“The special interests are becoming more powerful and smarter and having more influence than the legislators because they’re such experts. They’re around forever. That’s a big disadvantage now. And so now people are talking about maybe we should extend the term limits.”

Term limits should be abolished, but that’s a pipe dream. Voters have the false impression that the limits somehow are keeping politicians in check. Actually, they’re just keeping the pols moving from one office to another and not allowing them to get up to speed in one job.

But voters might agree to some adjustment, especially if a popular governor advocated it. There would be bipartisan support. Democrats aren’t the only politicians who want term limits loosened. Many Republican lawmakers privately hate the limits but are afraid to speak up.

The most common suggestion has been that legislators be allowed to serve a total of 12 years, two less than now, to make the change acceptable to voters. However, there would be a big difference: Those 12 years could be split in any manner the lawmaker chose, including all in one house.

But why not make it 16 years? If the goal is to create expertise and retain experience, two more total years seems minimal. Backed by Schwarzenegger, voters probably would sign off.

The key to making this palatable is to simultaneously reform redistricting to make legislative and congressional races more competitive in general elections. Lawmakers then would be more accountable to their constituents.

The present method of redistricting is indefensible. It reeks.

The Legislature draws its own districts. The congressional delegation also carves out its seats through the Legislature. In the 2001 redistricting, lawmakers gerrymandered lines to protect incumbents and the party status quo in each seat. It was a bipartisan conspiracy.

“The current system is rigged to benefit the interests of those in office -- not the interests of those who put them there,” Schwarzenegger told the Legislature in his State of the State speech. There was chilly silence.

Democratic leaders contend this is an arcane subject that only political insiders care about. They say they want to focus on problems that are important to people -- education, traffic, housing, healthcare.

Fine. So why fret about it? Let the governor have his reform. He probably will anyway.

But consider some refinements.

Two redistricting experts -- UC Berkeley political scientist Bruce Cain, a Democrat, and political analyst Tony Quinn, a Republican -- believe the district lines should be drawn by a citizens commission, rather than a panel of retired judges. There’d be more transparency, they say. Also, judges are not immune from politics; they’re creatures of it.

The GOP’s underlying bet is that it would gain seats from a neutral panel’s honest redistricting. But not necessarily. Democrats have benefited in the past from independent remapping.

“Democrats have nothing to fear from a fair plan,” says consultant Darry Sragow, a former chief strategist for Assembly Democrats.

“It’s been my experience that we have better candidates, better-run campaigns and the majority of California voters agree with what we stand for.”

Schwarzenegger insists on redistricting in mid-decade. He thinks competitive seats would produce pragmatic lawmakers more friendly to his proposals. But immediately altering districts and disrupting political dynamics could divert attention from more pressing state problems -- and smack of attempted GOP power-grabbing.

But, as the governor told the Union-Tribune: “They [Democrats] maybe want to talk about term limits at the same time.”

Democrats should grab it.

*

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.