Gov. backs Prop. 93 to keep leaders in place

The late Everett McKinley Dirksen, the melodic Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, reportedly intoned: “I live by my principles. And one of my principles is flexibility.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had a “Dirksen moment” Tuesday.

The governor flip-flopped on term limits -- a risky, gutsy move prompted by political pragmatism.

Simply put, Schwarzenegger endorsed Proposition 93, the legislators’ ballot initiative to change their term limits, because he wants to keep the current leaders around. He doesn’t want them termed out. They’re the Democratic devils he knows, rather than the replacement devils who might be opportunistic hotheads or timid lap-dogs for their party caucuses.

That’s especially true of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), the governor’s Sacramento equivalent of Danny DeVito, a Hollywood pal he co-starred with in the 1988 movie “Twins.” Nunez is a lot younger but only a few inches taller.

After a contentious start four years ago, Schwarzenegger and Nunez have developed a close working relationship. Both are eager to make deals and rack up records of achievement. The main example: legislation on global warming.

They’re now teamed up trying to pass an ambitious expansion of healthcare coverage. And for the plan to have any chance of clearing the Legislature and being approved by voters, Schwarzenegger believes Nunez must retain his powerful speakership. Nunez packs a lot more clout with lawmakers, campaign donors and voters as speaker than he would as “speaker emeritus.”

Schwarzenegger isn’t as close to Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland). But the governor seems to understand Perata better than most people in the Capitol and they also have a decent relationship -- Perata’s periodic potshots aside.

And, gubernatorial aides insist, don’t sell short the two Republican leaders: Sen. Dick Ackerman of Irvine and Mike Villines of Clovis. The governor feels comfortable with them too.

“He’s not afraid of working with new leaders, but respects all four of the current leaders and thinks they do a good job,” says Adam Mendelsohn, the governor’s communications director. “He doesn’t feel that any one of those four isn’t performing well.”

Let’s back up: Prop. 93 would reduce the total years someone could spend in the Legislature from 14 to 12, but allow all the time to be spent in one house. Currently, lawmakers are allowed three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year stints in the Senate. No state has tighter term limits. The result is a constant game of musical chairs as lawmakers jockey for their next jobs.

Without Prop. 93, Nunez, Perata and Ackerman would be termed out in December. Nunez could run for the Senate, but he’d be finished as speaker. If voters approve Prop. 93 on Feb. 5, however, the three leaders still will have time to file for reelection and run in the June state primary.

To make that timing work, the Legislature passed a bill moving up the presidential primary to February from June to create an early ballot for Prop. 93. Regardless of the self-serving motivation, all Californians should be grateful. We’ll be voting in a nail-biter of a race.

There are understandable reasons to oppose Prop. 93.

One is that the measure includes a sweetheart deal that would offer many lawmakers extra years in office, even beyond the currently allowed 14. That’s because incumbents could spend 12 years in their current house, regardless of previous service in the other house.

Second, Democratic leaders reneged on a promise to pass a companion ballot measure that would have surrendered the gerrymandering power to draw their own districts, a blatant conflict of interest.

And that brings us back to Schwarzenegger and his acrobatics. The governor long had vowed he wouldn’t endorse a change in term limits unless Democrats kept their promise on redistricting. For term limits “just to be out there by itself, I don’t support that,” he said. “The two must come as a package.”

So Schwarzenegger is catching heavy flak.

The pirouette was “a horrible mistake because it goes to his credibility,” says Tony Quinn, a former Republican redistricting strategist and current co-editor of the California Target Book, which chronicles political races. “He’s telling us that his words don’t have meaning. You can punch him in the nose and he’ll take it.”

What Nunez and Perata should do now -- quickly, before voters decide on Prop. 93 -- is to endorse a redistricting measure being pushed by Schwarzenegger and reform groups for the November ballot. That could calm the anger over their reneging and provide the governor some political points for their endorsements.

“The governor is very heavily lobbying the speaker to get behind redistricting,” Mendelsohn says.

But that’s not likely to happen, I’m told by Nunez insiders. It could spark a revolt within the Democratic caucus.

Schwarzenegger’s reversal on Prop. 93 has stirred speculation that he cut a deal with Perata to allow Senate passage of the healthcare plan -- and/or has struck a bargain with Nunez to soften his opposition to a major water bond.

I’m skeptical. The Senate probably will pass a healthcare plan anyway. Democrats won’t want to be blamed for killing expansion of medical coverage. Moreover, Nunez could trade Perata a water bill for healthcare.

Besides, such smoke-filled room quid pro quos aren’t Schwarzenegger’s style, even in his stogie tent.

Actually, what Schwarzenegger wrote in The Times op-ed piece announcing his endorsement makes sense: The 1990 term limits law “went too far” and, in fact, “is contributing to Sacramento’s problems rather than fixing them. . . . The [people] are not well served by so much turnover and the lack of expertise in the Legislature. . . . [The system] has ceded too much power to the special interests. . . .

“Proposition 93 is good public policy irrespective of redistricting.”

Agreed. And in the end, this should be about creating good public policy, not punishing politicians.

--

george.skelton@latimes.com