We humans tend to crave predictability and fear uncertainty, if for no other reason than the former implies security and the latter insecurity, which largely explains why those in and around California politics despise legislative term limits.

Legislators can't look forward to the long, comfortable careers of their predecessors (and no longer have pensions); legislative staffers must change jobs frequently; and lobbyists must constantly deal with new crops of lawmakers.

Those on the periphery – academics, journalistic pundits and the like – are equally sour on term limits because they, too, must cope with an ever-changing landscape.

Naturally, therefore, they tend to ascribe all the ills of a dysfunctional legislative process to term limits, saying that they rob the Capitol of expertise, continuity and camaraderie.

A new report by the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies typifies the genre, saying that the term limit ballot measure adopted by voters in 1990 "has failed to achieve its original purposes, and has triggered additional problems as well."

The report found that term limits has brought more men and women with local government experience to the Capitol, that most of them pursue their political careers elsewhere after being "termed-out," and that legislators are more dependent on lobbyists and staff than they used to be.

The report presents what one might term the intellectual case against term limits and clearly touts a pending ballot measure that would exchange the current limits, six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate, for a single 12-year limit on all legislative service.

That would not be an unreasonable modification, but if term limits are as terrible as their critics contend, why not ask voters to scrap them altogether? Because voters still like term limits, seeing them as a bulwark against self-dealing professional politicians.

Indeed, given the chance, voters probably would de-professionalize the Capitol even more. A recent USC/Los Angeles Times poll found that two-thirds would favor reducing the Legislature to a part-time body.

The question, however, remains: Have term limits improved or damaged the Legislature's effectiveness? And it's truly impossible to answer definitively because other concurrent factors, such as gerrymandered legislative districts, have played roles.

One must remember that a pre-term-limit Legislature dominated by ex-legislative staffers was no more effective and was at least semi-corrupt. Term limits haven't cured the Capitol's ills, but they probably didn't materially worsen them either.

Truly restoring effective governance to California would require a complete systemic overhaul to align policymaking process with 21st century reality.

Term limits are just one of many oozing bandages on a gaping civic wound.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters

• Read more articles by Dan Walters