Once upon a time - when new Volkswagen Beetles cost $1,825 and were fueled by 34-cent-a-gallon gasoline - California's legislators were part-time workers.

That was 43 years ago. In November 1966, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that gave legislators full-time positions.

And nowadays, it seems, they never go home.

In 2007, the Legislature met virtually the entire year, anchored in Sacramento by a regular session, a protracted budget fight and special sessions on water and health care. In 2008, lawmakers were in session for all but a six-week period in the fall.

And while they ostensibly recessed Sept. 12 for the remainder of 2009, no one expects them to stay away until January.

But in lawmaking, as in life, more does not necessarily mean better. As Californians' antipathy toward their elected officials hovers at historically high levels, the calls for a return to the part-time Legislature of yesteryear are becoming more frequent.

State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, who is vying for next year's Republican gubernatorial nomination, has called for a part-time - and more populist - Legislature.

"I am an avid proponent of changing the mix of people in the Legislature through converting the Legislature from full time to part time," Poizner said.

"I don't think we want professional politicians running our state. I think we want people that come from the trenches ... people that have successful careers, they have a paycheck coming from someplace else, then they can go to Sacramento at that part of their career in order to devote themselves to public service."

Two weeks ago - on the day legislators were locked in an 18-hour end-of-session session - a group calling itself Citizens for California Reform submitted a revised proposed initiative that would cut annual legislative sessions to a maximum of 95 days and slice lawmakers' pay by at least 50 percent.

That would reduce California's legislative sessions to levels lower than all but 10 small and/or rural states, such as Utah and Wyoming.

If the initiative is approved for circulation and gathers the required 694,354 signatures of registered voters, it would appear on the November 2010 ballot.

In August, state Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit regular legislative sessions to the first half of each year, adopt state budgets on a two-year cycle rather than annually and halve lawmakers' pay.

Unlike the proposed initiative, which does not address cutting the size of the Legislature's permanent staff, Denham's measure would also reduce the amount of money the Legislature spends on itself.

"I watched this Legislature as an outsider for many years before I was elected, and I have witnessed the Legislature's antics for the last six years from the inside," said Denham, who plans to run for lieutenant governor next year.

"Unfortunately, for the last decade, the full-time Legislature has failed the people."

Like the proposed initiative, Denham's proposal would go before voters in November 2010 - in the unlikely event that two-thirds of the Legislature approves it.

Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has periodically endorsed at least exploring the idea.

"If Texas can be governed by a part-time Legislature," Schwarzenegger said last June, "so can California."

As the second-most-populous state, Texas is often trotted out by part-time proponents as a model for California to emulate.

The 181 lawmakers of the Lone Star State meet for a maximum of 140 days in odd-numbered years. In even-numbered years, they don't meet at all unless the governor calls them into special session.

For their part-time troubles, they're paid $7,200 a year (compared to the $116,208 paid their California counterparts.)

But less doesn't necessarily mean better, either.

"In Texas, we argue about whether there should be a full-time Legislature," said Sherri Greenberg, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin's Center for Politics and Governance, "although in some ways we already have one."

Greenberg, who served for a decade in the Texas House of Representatives from a district in Austin, said that many legislators spend much of their non-session time serving on policy committees to shape legislation for the regular sessions.

Since Texas lacks both the initiative and referendum processes, and the Legislature is responsible for adopting rules for every county, city and school district employee pension program in the state, Greenberg said, there is always a mountain of bills to deal with each session.

"The idea was to have a citizen Legislature here," Greenberg said. "But clearly, to take the necessary amount of time off of work, some would argue that it actually limits involvement (to retired and wealthy people), so this is an issue that is constantly debated."

In addition, Texas lawmakers rely heavily in their absences from the Capitol on a full-time staff that is virtually the same size as California's.

All that adds up. Texas taxpayers spent an estimated $343 million ($14.10 per resident) on their Legislature over the past two years, compared to about $500 million ($13.60 per resident) in California.

In the wake of all this pro-part-time activity, a bipartisan group calling itself Californians for an Effective Legislature registered last week with the secretary of state's office to fight the proposed initiative.

"While we understand that many Californians are frustrated with their government," said former Assemblyman John Laird, "the seventh-largest economy in the world ... needs committed legislators, not amateurs who will have only 90 days a year on the job before they make decisions affecting millions of Californians."

Call Steve Wiegand, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1076.