Whether You Like Term Limits or Not, Vote No on Prop 28

Karlo Silbiger

Californians love their term limits.  State elected officials can only serve for 8 years (except for Assembly members who can only serve for 6), most cities have term limits for council members and mayors, even LA County (the hotbead of political corruption and tyrannical government) now has limitations on the terms of the supervisors.  We hate our politicians so much that we want nothing more than to force them out of office as quickly as possible.

Of course, there are some positive characteristics about term limits in that they keep bringing fresh blood into elective office on a continual basis along with their new ideas, excitement, and increased diversity.  On the other hand, term limits have limited institutional memory, forcing politicians to rely on the lobbyists and career staffers / bureaucrats to help them make decisions.

Every couple of years, Sacramento politicians, unhappy that they have to find a new job, try to put an initiative on the ballot to extend or alter term limits.  Such is the case with Proposition 28, on which voters will have to decide in this Tuesday's election.  The issues involved are a bit wonky, though potentially significant, so let me try to go through them.  Currently, members of the state assembly can serve for up to 6 years before they are term limited out.  However, they have to run for re-election every 2 years.  Members of the state senate can serve for up to 8 years, running every 4 years.  So a politician could conceivably serve for 14 years total if they were elected to both houses of the legislature and were re-elected by the voters to the most number of terms allowable by law.

If Proposition 28 were to pass, there would no longer be limits on service in each individual house of the legislatures, but there would instead be a cap of 12 years on the length of service in Sacramento combined.  You could serve 4 years in the assembly and 8 in the senate, 8 years in the assembly and 4 in the senate, or all 12 years in the same place.  Supporters of this proposition argue that it has something for everyone.  For those who like term limits, this reduces by 2 years the total cap on elective service.  For those who worry about the lack of institutional memory and continual turnover of leadership, it allows legislators to stay in the same seat for 12 years, a 50%-100% increase in years of service over the current system (depending on the house).

Done deal, right?  Problem solved?  Not quite.  In fact proposition 28 does nothing to solve the legitimate problems with term limits and instead creates a big new problem. 

We don’t have many competitive legislative elections in California anymore.  Part of that can be tied to the backwards way that we have gerrymandered redistricting over the past decades, creating very few competitive districts.  Part of that can be tied to the incredibly large size of our legislative districts (about 400,000 people in Assembly districts and 800,000 people in senate districts) creating elections far too costly for many people to consider being candidates.  But another top cause of our lack of real competitive elections is term limits, which make it easier for people to wait until an open election comes around rather than trying to unseat an incumbent.  If you don’t believe me, look at the rest of your sample ballot for Tuesday’s election.  Holly Mitchell, who will be term limited out in 4 years, has 2 token candidates running against her while Mark Ridley-Thomas, who will be term limited out in 8 years, is running completely unopposed.  Mitchell and Ridley-Thomas are good leaders who deserve to be reelected, but that is not the case with all of their colleagues.

I hate this effect of term limits because it has allowed many horrible elected officials to go unchallenged.  But at least it is only for 6 or 8 years.  We put up with them for a half dozen years and hope for a better outcome the next time.  If proposition 28 passes, that period of elections that look like they are taken right from the kremlin, will be doubled.  While it is true that currently politicians can serve up to 14 years in the legislature, they only get to do that if they serve so well in the assembly that a new group of constituents in a new district decide to elect them to the senate against what is usually at least somewhat stiff competition.  They have to EARN their 14 years.  Should proposition 28 pass, politicians will be able to stay in the same safe seats for 12 years with the same minimally competitive elections that currently grace our ballots every 2 years.

6 of the 7 groups that have given $100,000 or more to the yes on 28 campaign are either business or labor Political Action Committees (PACs) including Majestic Realty and LA Live Properties.  If they, or anyone else, want to really fix term limits in California, there are legitimate steps that they can take.  They can start by increasing the number of years that politicians can serve in the legislature 8 or 12 years in each house seem better to me than 6.  They can change assembly rules so that members only have to run every 4 years rather than the current every other year election cycle that provides for constant campaigning and less time for real governing.  But instead, this is what they have come up with.  These PACs know that this proposition will create less competition, more lobbyist influence, and less true grassroots democracy, and that’s what they want.  Luckily, we the voters get the last say on Tuesday and I hope that they won’t take our mangled political system and screw it up even worse.

Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, President of the Culver City School Board, and Former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.