No on 93 -- unless you think the Legislature's doing well

last updated: January 13, 2008 02:58:26 AM

The cynicism that fuels California's dysfunctional state government has been turning off voters for years, but legislative leaders have outdone themselves with Proposition 93.

The measure, with the beguiling name of "Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office," is a transparent sham even by Sacramento standards. Voters should reject it Feb. 5.

Ostensibly the measure would reduce the time legislators could serve in office. Currently, they are allowed to serve six years in the state Assembly and eight in the Senate, for a total of 14 years. Proposition 93 would reduce the overall tenure to 12 years, but allow all of that time to be served in either house.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. But the real purpose of the ballot measure is to give current leaders, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Don Perata, and 40 other members a chance to extend their time in office -- and in power.

Núñez and Perata originally promised to couple Proposition 93 with changes in the way legislative district boundaries are drawn. That might have been an acceptable trade-off. But as they've done before, they reneged on those promises -- this time without even bothering to offer the mealy mouthed excuses they've come up with in the past. That is enough by itself to cost them any hope of support for Proposition 93.

Term limits should be changed. They haven't worked as well as voters once hoped. The net effect of term limits has been to reduce the experience level of those who serve in Sacramento, elevate the role of special interests and their lobbyists, and turn electoral cycles into an unending marathon on fund raising and focusing on the next job, rather than on California's increasingly serious problems.

But Proposition 93 is not a serious reform of term limits. If it is passed, Núñez, Perata and many other incumbents could run for re-election in the June primary. Many of them still would be around when the time comes, after the 2010 census, to draw the legislative boundaries again. That's a recipe for preserving the gerrymandering that makes a mockery of state elections.

That system makes seats safe for incumbents in all but the most extraordinary cases, and guarantees that seats won't often change party hands even when an incumbent is not running.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature bear the blame for this system. They conspired to keep themselves in office with a system that rewards those on the extreme of the state's political spectrum and keeps moderates out.

The result is a state government that is rigidly partisan and increasingly ineffective.

And Núñez, Perata and the other incumbents want us to reward them for that. They want to stay in office so they can continue their efforts on our behalf. You know, those bold strokes they've taken to solve the state's growing water crisis, restore a crumbling infrastructure, increase performance in the state's schools, clean up the air, promote economic development and sustain California's world-class system of higher education.

If you like the job these elected leaders have been doing, then vote for Proposition 93, and keep them hard at work. If not, vote "no" on this thoroughly misleading measure.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer