Editorial: Vote No on Proposition 93's term limits change

Early last year, legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left us with a smidgen of hope they would agree on a carrot-and-stick deal to bring real political reform to the Capitol.

The carrot would be a loosening of term limits, allowing smart, accomplished legislators to spend more time in office.

The stick would be redistricting reform. No longer could legislators draw their own districts every decade, ensuring safe seats for incumbents.

Now that we have crossed over into 2008, it's hardly surprising that Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez have delivered only on half of this deal – Proposition 93. This measure, which stands a chance of passing on the Feb. 5 ballot, does little to loosen the current shackles of term limits and mainly serves to give Núñez and Perata more time in their posts.

Such an outcome might have been palatable had Perata and Núñez followed through on their promises and placed a redistricting reform measure on this ballot. But they didn't, and they shouldn't be rewarded. Voters should reject Proposition 93 in the hope that the next pair of legislative leaders can show more courage and deliver real results.

Under the state's 1990 term limits law, legislators are limited to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate. As this page has stated numerous times, these limits are far too tight, particularly in the Assembly.

Lawmakers are often termed out just as they gain expertise in particular policy areas, such as water or health care. Termed out too quickly, they are constantly angling for their next job, becoming more beholden to lobbyists and big donors who could help them get there.

Proposition 93 would change this formula by reducing the total time that future legislators could serve from 14 years to 12 years, while allowing them to spend all of those 12 years in a single chamber. It would also "grandfather in" sitting lawmakers, meaning that Núñez, who will be termed out this year, would get another six years in the Assembly. Perata would get another four years in the Senate.

Proponents, including Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, say allowing 12 years in a single chamber would improve the sorry state of affairs in the Legislature while still respecting the spirit of term limits.

Jones may be right, but the downside of Proposition 93 is it would encourage members to serve all their time in a single chamber, with little or no crossover. That might increase the recent polarization we've seen between the Senate and Assembly.

A better option would be to truly loosen term limits, allowing legislators to serve 8-10 years in the Assembly, and 12 in the Senate. Any such modification, however, would need to be conditional on passage of redistricting reform – creating a reasonably independent commission to draw districts every decade.

Once Proposition 93 is defeated, this editorial board will call on the new Senate president pro tem and the new Assembly speaker to deliver on such a package. We'll also be looking to Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner – an opponent of Proposition 93 – to be a partner. Poizner says he'd entertain changes to the current term limits law. We'll hold him to that.

Vote No on Proposition 93.