LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS’ TERMS IN OFFICE.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

THE QUESTION

Should the California Constitution be amended to reduce the total time an elected official may serve in the state Legislature from the current limit of 14 years (with a maximum of 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the Senate) to a proposed limit of 12 years without regard to the house in which the time is served?

BACKGROUND

(From the LAO Analysis)

The state’s voters passed Proposition 140 at the November 1990 election. As well as other changes, Proposition 140 changed the State Constitution to create term limits for the Legislature–Members of the Assembly and Senate. Term limits restrict the number of years that individuals can serve in the Legislature. Currently, an individual generally cannot serve a total of more than 14 years in the Legislature. (An exception is when an individual serves additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.) An individual’s service is restricted to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).

THE PROPOSAL

Time Limits Without Regard to Legislative House. Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature (compared to 14 years currently). Unlike the current system, these years could be served without regard to whether they were in the Assembly or Senate. In other words, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses. (As under current law, an individual could serve additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.)

Current Members of the Legislature. Under this measure, existing Members of the Legislature could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house (regardless of how many years were already served in the other house). This could result in some current Members serving longer than 14 years in the Legislature.

FISCAL EFFECT

By altering term limits for Members of the Legislature, the measure would likely change which individuals are serving in the Legislature at any time. This would not have any direct fiscal effect on total state spending or revenues. The different composition of the Legislature, however, would likely lead to different decisions being made–for example on legislation and the state budget–than would otherwise be the case. These decisions could have an effect on state spending and revenues. Any such indirect impacts, however, are unknown and impossible to estimate.

WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS

A YES vote means members of the state Legislature could serve a maximum of 12 years in office, without regard to whether the years are served in the Assembly or Senate.

A NO vote means members of the state Legislature could continue to serve a maximum of 14 years in office–up to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 93 strikes a balance between the need to elect new people with fresh ideas, and the need for knowledgeable, experienced legislators to solve complex problems facing our state.
• The simple but important adjustments of Proposition 93 will let legislators spend more time working for taxpayers, and less time worrying about which office to run for next.
• Independent studies prove it will help make our Legislature more effective, accountable and better able to deal with the complex problems facing California.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 93 is a scam written by politicians and funded by special interests that will benefit 42 termed-out incumbent politicians by giving them more time in office.
• This measure actually lengthens politicians’ time in office by doubling Assembly terms from six to 12 years, and increasing Senate terms from eight to 12 years.
• California’s leading taxpayer groups oppose Proposition 93 and say it’s just another attempt by politicians to deceive the public and evade term limits.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION

Official ballot arguments in favor of Proposition 93 are signed by Betty Jo Toccoli, President, California Small Business Association; Richard Riordan, former California Education Secretary; and Susan Smartt, Executive Director, California League of Conservation Voters.

Additional ballot supporters of Proposition 93 include Liane M. Randolph, former Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission; Rick Mattos, President, California Association of Highway Patrolmen; and Elizabeth M. Perry, Public Policy Director, Older Women’s League of California.

Official ballot arguments against Proposition 93 are signed by Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee; Julie Vandermost, President, California Women’s Leadership Association; and Timothy J. Escobar, Vice-President, U.S. Term Limits.

Additional ballot opponents of Proposition 93 include Martha Montelongo, Vice-President, California Term Limits Defense Fund; Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; and Steve Poizner, California Insurance Commissioner.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

PRO: (916) 443-7817, Charu Khopkar, Committee for Term Limits and Legislative Reform, http://www.termlimitsreform.com

CON: (916) 482-5000, Bob Adney, California Term Limits Defense Fund, http://www.stopthepoliticians.com

Web Resources

Smart Voter includes list of resources below and more: http://smartvoter.org/2008/02/05/ca/state/prop/93

Analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s office: http://lao.ca.gov/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx
Voter Information Guide (ballot pamphlet): http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
Reports of campaign expenditures for ballot measures: http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/