California Proposition 93
California Proposition 93 is a pickle for me.Our state operates on the proposition system. Bills receiving the minimum number of signatures are put on the ballot along with the primary candidates and the people have access to direct democracy. While I’m not much of a populist, I think having a limited direct democracy is fine, if not very interesting to talk about.That being said, proposition 93 reduces the term limit of legislators from a total amount of 14 years to 12 years. This is 14 and 12 years regardless of which legislative chamber. By default, I’m against term limits. I like professionalization in state legislatures. However, I would also like the kick our current legislators out the door, particularly our leadership.California has consistently been overwhelmingly pro-term limits. All attempts to overturn term limits have failed misreably, much to my displeasure. Therefore, many voters are probably going to be drawn in by this measure. What many of them are going to miss is that this proposition basically resets the number of years each legislator has served as if they were just starting. That means legislators approaching their limit (e.g. Fabian Nunez), get to start over. They will then enjoy 12 more years in the legislature. While this bill appears to decrease the terms of legislators, it actually increases them.In my ideal world, we would vote this bill down (one that actually increases the terms of legislators, something I would normally support) and then in the future overturn term limits. I also realize the odds of that happening are astronomical.
No comments, but sitemeter shows that this has been an incredibly popular google-searched blog post.
I had never heard of this before, but term limits is always a fun debate. I’m not so sure that politicians get better the longer they stay in office, but maybe I’m just cynical. Some exceptions come to mind, but I am fairly confident that they are exceptions to the rule that corruption and years in office have a positive correlation.
David M Manes
14 Jan 08 at 6:27 am
I believe we should not limit terms for elected offices, but we *should* have runoff elections.
FDR is an example of why term limits shouldn’t exist.
The mayor of Memphis (we have no term limit there) is an example why we should have runoff elections. King Willie (as his subjects call him) was recently elected to his 5th term, with about 45% of the vote. Of course, Memphis politics are just ugly anyway. This guy is a disgrace to the Democratic Party.
Sorry for rambling on your comment section.
TheChrisBerry
16 Jan 08 at 7:01 am
Oh, another great example of a time we should have had a runoff election: Gore vs. Bush, 2000. Enough said.
In fact…I think there should be a runoff election any time a candidate wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote. Again, I apologize for the rambling.
TheChrisBerry
16 Jan 08 at 7:03 am
How do runoff elections work, thechrisberry?
Chris McNeal
16 Jan 08 at 2:03 pm
A runoff is when no candidate wins outright with a majority, so instead of the candidate with the largest number of votes winning (the plurality), the top two vote getters stand for a second election in which they are the only two choices.
We had a runoff in Searcy for Mayor after the 2006 election because there were three candidates and none got 51%.
If there had been a presidential runoff in 2000, 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader would have been dropped from the ticketand voters would have to choose between the top two candidates.
Interesting idea…
But what if we had had a runoff system in 1992 or 1996? We probably never would have had President Clinton…
David M Manes
16 Jan 08 at 4:11 pm
This is true, David, but if we had a runoff election in 2000 we would have never had Bush.
TheChrisBerry
17 Jan 08 at 1:24 am
If you don’t like term limits, this proposition gives you half a loaf. Prop. 93 resets the starting point of term limits for incumbents, letting, for example, a legislator with 13 years experience serve another 12 years.
If you like term limits, this proposition gives you the other half of the loaf. 12 years from now, legislators get to serve 2 years less than they do now, but they get to build up some expertise by staying in the same branch of the legislature for their entire legislative career.
I like term limits, but I dislike the grandfathering of current legislators — it’s slimy. Let them come back with a pared down proposition without such a provision, and I’ll vote for it.
majic
19 Jan 08 at 9:13 pm
There is an important inaccuracy in your summary of Proposition 93: “What many of them are going to miss is that this proposition basically resets the number of years each legislator has served as if they were just starting.”
This is incorrect. The proposed change would allow legislators to serve a total of 12 years in the legislative body in which they currently serve. If they have already served 4 years, they could serve at most another 8 under the new rule. Nothing is “reset”. That said, for the next few years there will be politicians for whom the maximum time in office will be extended.
The intent here seems to be to eliminate the need for legislators to hop between assembly and senate in order to maximize their time in public office, presumably because that hopping is a distraction. Instead of separate limits on time in each of the two branches, this establishes a single overall limit on combined time.
Jack
21 Jan 08 at 5:35 am
I think he is right, Chris. You should probably edit your post (especially since so many people are coming to the site in search of info about CA prop 93.
David M Manes
23 Jan 08 at 3:21 am