I've never really hidden my disdain for the term limits we have in California. It only serves to gather power in unelected staff and lobbyists. Six years just isn't enough, and the merry-go-round of elections just doesn't really help anybody.
So, a few months ago, the LA Chamber of Commerce and the LA Labor Fed got together to file an initiative that would basically do what Prop 93 a few years ago would have done. That is change the term limits to allow 12 years in either house, rather than 6 in one, and 8 in another. It seems now, that is more likely to get on the ballot after a big check arrived in the bank account:
The developer of a proposed NFL stadium in Los Angeles County has donated $300,000 to change the state's term limits law. Seed money for the political committee, Californians for a Fresh Start, has come from three major donors within the past two weeks. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce has donated $10,000, the L.A . County Federation of Labor has donated $100,000 and Majestic Realty, the developer, has given $300,000.
Proponents of the measure are hoping to place it on the November 2010 ballot.(CapWeekly)
Well, politics isn't pretty is it? You have a big stadium deal pushed through verrrrry late in the legislative session. And oh, look at that, a term limits measure appears out of nowhere. Wow!
But, whatever the motivation for term limits reform, it's a good idea. I'm not sure it would be my top priority, that would be reserved for eliminating supermajority requirements, but good policy nonetheless.
UPDATE by Robert: As I understand it, the difference between this and Prop 93 is that currently serving legislators would be exempted, whereas under Prop 93, they would have been included. That helps this proposal be seen less as incumbent protection and as the sensible reform it actually is.
Trying to appease the cowards running for higher office in the Assembly rank and file, Karen Bass has dropped the sentencing commission out of the prison reform package.
The sentencing commission was among the most controversial provisions of the Senate prison plan. But on Monday, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said "a real sentencing commission, with teeth, is my top priority" for corrections legislation.
Steinberg spokeswoman Alicia Dlugosh said Monday that the Senate leader would like to see any legislation passed by the Assembly "realize the same dollar figure in savings as the Senate bill."
The bill passed last week by the Senate, AB 14 XXX would save the state an estimated $600 million, according to an analysis of the bill. But the Assembly seemed poised to make key changes that would reduce those savings by about $220 million.
Among the other changes expected to be made by the Assembly would be the elimination of a provision that would change some crimes which can be either felonies or misdemeanors --known as "wobblers" - exclusively to misdemeanors. The Assembly bill expected to come up for a vote this week would leave the state's wobbler law unchanged.
Assembly Democrats also balked at a provision in the Senate bill that would allow some sick and elderly inmates to finish their sentences under house arrest.
Bass said she hoped to pass the sentencing commission as stand-alone legislation later in the year. First of all, the year ends on September 11, and second, adding the commission to a must-pass reform package was the whole point. If lawmakers objected to it as part of a package, they're not going to turn around and support it in isolation.
Punting on this issue will ensure that federal judges will be mandating reductions of the prison population 10 years down the road. The only reform worth doing in the package now clarifies parole policy, devoting resources to those who need to be monitored instead of the blanket supervision that has turned our parole system into a revolving door. But that will not be enough to turn around the prison crisis for the long-term, without finally doing something about our ever expanding sentencing law.
This also shows the complete dysfunction of the leadership. Darrell Steinberg may not go along with the limited version, and I don't blame him. His chamber has now stuck their neck out three times on tough votes - Tranquillon Ridge drilling, HUTA raids and now this - that the Assembly has quashed. I wasn't unhappy about the first two, but if I was in the Senate, I'd be pissed about all these controversial votes I was needlessly taking. You'd think Karen Bass would have a sense of her caucus and know that she couldn't pass whatever she and Steinberg and the Governor hammered out in private. Because she's on her way out the door in 2010 she has no leverage over the caucus, because everyone's termed out and running for something else they have no fealty to the Assembly, and because they all live perpetually in fear they won't take a vote they know would help future generations deal with a crisis.
As I've said, a broken process will almost always produce a broken result. But individual lawmakers need to be called out. Particularly the three Assemblymembers running for Attorney General who think they're showing off their toughness. When all of them lose, they'll probably attribute it to other factors. They should be reminded of this day.
People seemed to really engage with this post about a Constitutional convention, so I wanted to follow up with some of my thoughts for what a convention could tackle and what it could look like. As it happens I attended a town hall meeting about a proposed ConCon a couple weeks ago in Santa Monica, featuring Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies, Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council, Steven Hill and Mark Paul of the New America Foundation, Asm. Julia Brownley (AD-41), Santa Monica Mayor Pam O'Connor and LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl.
At the root, a Constitutional convention must concern itself with restoring confidence in government. Right now, that's at an all-time low, especially after budget agreements hashed out in secret that defy the will of the people and an erosion in the public trust in lawmakers to do the right thing in Sacramento. Government is not responsive, in fact in many cases it cannot Constitutionally be responsive to the popular will. The institutions have become paralyzed and captive to special interest lobbying. We have ten lobbyists for every legislator in Sacramento. And we have turned over the reins to a new branch of government, the ballot, and anything significant must be mandated by a vote of the people. As Julia Brownley, now in her second term, said, "Government structure is broken and we need to fix it... I didn't understand until I set foot in the Legislature the paralysis and gridlock that kills the system." I think Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, who is carrying Constitutional convention legislation in the Senate, put it well when he said that California remains at the vanguard with anything that can be accomplished on a majority-vote basis. Anything with a 2/3 threshold, in other words anything fiscal, is a mess. And it needs to be solved.
So how would a convention, the first of its kind since 1879, be structured? (flip)
Does it serve some purpose? Four year terms aren't so very much longer than two. They don't represent counties anymore. Just because the Feds have a Senate (in all its splendor) isn't much of a reason for us to have one.
I'd trade it in for term limits. You can be re-elected as many times as your district wants to vote for you but you have to run every two years.
Or, even more blue-sky: Increase the size of the Assembly and make the new 40 seats statewide party list seats. If you get 2.5% of the vote, you get a seat. Or some such arrangement, maybe not statewide. But the two major state parties are such failures, I think it'd be good to get some wild cards in there.
Today in the Capitol Morning Report, a subscription only fact-filled tip sheet, former Assembly Member Bill Bagley takes a go at the gridlock in Sacramento. You might remember Bagley's name, as he is a long-time Republican Assemblyman who endorsed Barack Obama for the Presidency. He had a record of being a real moderate, but it was easier to be a moderate in the 1960s when he spent most of his time in the Legislature.
He goes through a whole litany of reasons why the Legislature is not a very bipartisan place from his day to the current antipathy. Bagley begins with the ending of cross-filing, which brought a bunch of moderate Republicans, in 1959. He then notes that the reform (Prop 9, 1974) that ended lobbyist lunches alienated the members from each other. They no longer dined and "hung out" with each other, and had the opportunity to like each other as human beings.
All of that is interesting background, but the real problem comes from the two more recent developments: Prop 13 and term limits. Prop 13 brought a bunch of conservative radicals who not only voted in a bloc, but wouldn't even sit next to Democrats.
But the death knell to bipartisanship was really term limits. The term limits blocked any hope of legislators developing a trust between members. There can be no long-term relationships of trust, because there are no relationships at all. Members have an eye on the next office, and the primary for that office.
Bagley's solution is the Open Primary and optimism for the meaningless Proposition 11 redistricting reforms. As we've said here many, many times, Prop 11 isn't a real solution. You can't redistrict "moderate" districts into LA or SF, or even some Republican areas. Perhaps the open primary would bring a few less partisan voters into the voting booth, but it's certainly no lock that will actually happen.
What amazes me is how quickly Bagley just drifts over the more obvious solution: repeal term limits. Term limits create a constant merry go round where legislators are always looking towards the next office, ignoring their current surroundings. Allow them to get used to the place, and to their fellow legislators. Unfortunately, as we discovered with Prop 93 last year, there is still quite a bit of opposition to that particular reform.
A final point should be made. One party has been willing to compromise, has made cuts to some of its core constituencies, has been willing to adjust to reflect the reality of our time. Unfortunately, you can't compromise with somebody who refuses to budge. You have to give a little to get a little, and Bagley's Republican heirs refuse to do so.
Following the 2000 census the California Assembly, Senate and Governorship were all controlled by Democrats. In line with tradition they used their majority power to create new electoral districts designed to maximize the Democratic majority. They did this by drawing district lines that bunched Democrats and Republicans together in some very oddly shaped districts.
Term limits continue to keep women legislators trotting one step forward and two steps back in the battle for equal representation. Facing the worst budget deficit in history, legislators returned to Sacramento yesterday. It is times like these, when experience and institutional knowledge play an important role in negotiations to make sure that the budget is fair and responsible.
Unfortunately, due to term limits, some of our most seasoned legislators will be leaving office at the end of this year. In November 34 tested legislators will be leaving office on both sides of the partisan fence. It is during our uncertain economic future when decisions are being made that affect all Californians, we become acutely aware of the importance that experienced leadership can bring. With a two-thirds majority mandate required to pass a budget, those years of experience at persuasion and consensus-building are indispensable.
The redistricting component features an independent 17-member "hybrid" commission. No legislators will serve on the panel, with the majority picked randomly from a screened pool with no legislative influence and eight others picked by legislative leaders. Unlike the Voters First initiative that may appear on the November ballot, this proposal requires diversity in every step of the process and puts the Voting Rights Act first and foremost among the criteria in selecting districts. There's also a host of transparency and public input provisions.
The term limits provision is similar to Prop 93, but excludes the provisions that protected many incumbents that drew criticism. It reduces the maximum amount of time a person can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years, allowing a legislator to serve all their time in one house.
There's also a fundraising blackout period prohibiting campaign contributions to legislators and the Governor from May 15th until the budget is enacted.
These would go up on the ballot for passage by voters in November once they get through the Legislature. There is of course already a redistricting measure that appears to be on its way to the ballot, so it's unclear whether or not this is a "confuse and kill" strategy. But Nuñez said that his hope would be for one redistricting proposal on the ballot.
Facing the end of both his term in the state assembly and as its Speaker, Fabian Núñez is pushing a series of "legislative reforms," as reported in today's LA Times. The problem is that these "reforms" will do little to produce actual improvements in governance - and if Núñez is interested in securing his "legacy" as the article suggests, he's taking the wrong approach.
Núñez is trying to put three initiatives on the November ballot - a term limits extension that would only apply to legislators who are not in their final terms (so that Núñez himself won't benefit); a ban on fundraising during budget negotiations - and a redistricting measure.
Núñez is teaming up with Yacht Party leader Mike Villines on all of these reform initiatives, including redistricting. The article does not detail the Núñez redistricting measure, but noted that he (rightly) objected to the Schwarzenegger plan's possibility of weakening majority-minority districts - and that Núñez believes the best way to defeat Arnold's redistricting plan is to provide his own alternative. The article also notes that Núñez has $5.1 million to spend on these accounts (assuming he doesn't give in to the pressure to return that to the CDP).
But nowhere in Núñez' legacy plan is there anything regarding the 2/3 rule for budget and tax votes in the Legislature, by far the most important reform that the Legislature needs. $5.1 million would provide a major boost to an effort to eliminate the 2/3 rule and restore sanity to the state budget process. Given the likelihood of a Yacht Party holdout on the budget this summer public support for a 2/3 elimination would be high this November.
Instead Núñez is wasting his time on less relevant issues. Term limits reform would be nice, but it's not the state's highest priority at the moment. Same with fundraising during budget talks.
Most importantly, the entire redistricting reform movement is a sham, built upon completely unproven assumptions and on the unstated but key desire to reduce the number of Democrats in Sacramento. More on that below.
With no presidential primary on the statewide ballot, voter turnout in June is expected to be abysmal. Which means that Proposition 98 - the extreme right-wing measure to abolish rent control, basic tenant protections, environmental regulations and water laws - could actually pass. But with term limits forcing many state legislators out of office, there will also be a number of competitive June primaries - creating the potential to drive up voter turnout in the state's more progressive pockets. If Democratic candidates for Assembly and State Senate make the defeat of Prop 98 a central part of their campaign, they could help it go down in flames. Candidates who mobilize to defeat it would also benefit - as it will help them connect more strongly with the Democratic voters in their district.
In the aftermath of the failure of Prop 93 on Tuesday, most attention seemed to be focused on the leadership contests in Sacramento. But Prop 93's failure has sparked a whole series of contests to replace outgoing lawmakers. With the June primary four months away, potential candidates are scrambling to get their names out there in the public eye, raise money, and rally supporters. These contests will help determine the future of the Democratic legislature and progressive politics in the state, and so it's time we looked at some of these in greater detail.
Here in the Monterey Bay area, in AD-27, we're faced with the task of replacing the incomparable John Laird, one of the most knowledgeable legislators on the budget and a strong progressive. The Yes on 93 campaign won Santa Cruz and Monterey counties with an effective "Yes on 93 - Keep John Laird" appeal, but it wasn't enough. Laird's future is uncertain - like the equally talented Fred Keeley, who represented the district before he was termed out in 2002, Laird does not live in SD-15, the long coastal state senate district currently represented by Republican Abel Maldonado. Most of us here would love Laird to move a few miles east and run in SD-15, one of the most winnable Senate districts in the state (Dems now have a lead in registration), but Laird has not announced his intentions.
Five candidates have declared for the Democratic primary here in AD-27. Emily Reilly is a member of the Santa Cruz City Council and last year served as the city's mayor. She's visited Calitics before - in December she wrote an excellent piece attacking the "design-build" concept that Arnold is so much in love with, and I personally support her in the race to replace Laird. She has strong progressive credentials on issues from health care to sustainability and climate change, and has also demonstrated significant fundraising prowess - she raised nearly $120,000 from over 300 small donors in Q4 2007, even before it was known whether she would actually be a candidate for AD-27 (she, like most in the race, promised to withdraw if Prop 93 passed).
Bill Monning is another experienced entrant into the race. Monning is a Monterey attorney, and has challenged for this seat before - in 1994 he was the Democratic nominee, but lost to Bruce McPherson in that year's Republican tide. Monning, like Reilly, emphasizes his strong progressive credentials, and is especially interested in action on climate change. According to the Monterey Herald Monning has $60,000 in the bank, but plans to raise $480,000 for the primary.
Over the flip I discuss the other announced candidates for the seat...
It's primary election day in California. Don't let yourself forget to vote, and check our voter guide to help you figure out what those initiatives are about.
Here is a scary thought: People who are just old enough to vote for the first time in this election were ten years old when the 2000 election brought George Bush to the White House, and likely don't remember much from before that.
The latest Field Poll is out and though the news is not good for Prop 93 supporters or opponents of the gaming compacts, the most important thing may be the number of voters still undecided here on the eve of the election. In the table numbers in Parentheses are early Jan #s and December #s.
Prop/Response
Prop 93
Props 94-97
Yes
33 (39 50)
47 (42 39)
No
46 (39 32)
34 (37 33)
Undecided
21 (22 18)
19 (21 28)
And 80% of voters have heard of Prop 93, compared up from 65% earlier in January and from 25% in December.
Interestingly, the recent Field presidential poll also showed a substantial number of voters still undecided. But for 93 to pass and 94-97 to fail, those undecideds will have to break heavily in one direction. And the trendlines are not favorable for 93 supporters and 94-97 opponents.
Kevin Drum, the progressive blogger extraordinaire at Washington Monthly, yesterday endorsed Proposition 93 in his Political Animal blog. In his brief post he called Prop 93 "one of those rare initiatives I'm in favor of."
From my point of view, there's an easy one and a hard one. The easy one is Prop 93, which changes our term limits law. Currently, you're limited to 14 years: three terms (6 years) in the assembly and two terms (8 years) in the senate. The problem with this is that a limit of three terms in the assembly, for example, means that the Speaker of the Assembly never has more than four years of experience before taking over the top spot. This is dumb. The point of a term limits law should be to prevent people from making careers out of a single political office, not doing away with experience altogether.
The new law is simpler: it limits service to 12 years total, in either house. This is how I would have written the law in the first place, and it's a good compromise between limiting legislative service while still allowing politicians to gain enough experience to know how to run things. This is one of those rare initiatives I'm in favor of.
In addition, the campaign organized a press conference at the LGBT Center here in San Francisco with (L->R) Mark Leno (who stands to lose 4 years if Prop 93 is passed) and Asms. Ruskin, along with SF Democratic Party Chair Scott Weiner.
Incidentally, the "tough one" for him was 94-97. He seemed to lean towards yes, based primarily on his feeling that the legislature and the governor should get to run the state.
Today I'm headed out to the OC for the Democratic Party of Orange County annual convention, where I'm participating on a panel about Prop. 93 (and debating Tim Steed of the California Young Democrats). I respect the opinion of those on this site and elsewhere who support Prop. 93. I can't join them for the following reasons:
In the last few days, Prop 93 has gotten a bunch of surprising endorsements. In the past few weeks, besides the Governator, Prop 93 was endorsed by such varying personalities as Chris "Darth" Norby and Fred Keeley. You don't get much different than those two. However, as I'm loath to link to something from the John and Ken Show, I'll go with former Asm. Keeley:
By making this modification, voters would be re-establishing the balance of powers among and between the three branches of state government. It would also retain the best aspects of term limits, while improving the utility of this tool for problem solving. Of course, for our community it would permit our outstanding Assembly member John Laird to remain in the Assembly for a bit longer. (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1/20/08)
These endorsements are not isolated, as people are gradually able to separate distinct arguments and look at the details of Prop 93. Recently, the Desert Sun endorsed Prop 93 on fairly similar ground
Proposition 93 is needed because:
• The Legislature lacks experience. In our attempt to move away from powerful career politicians, we now have a Legislature where one-third of the members are termed out every two years.
• Voters should recognize that there is a learning curve when new lawmakers join the legislature. Lobbyists spend years in Sacramento. Our representatives come and go so quickly, they hardly have what it takes to stand up to such power.
• We want new, fresh ideas in the legislature, but we also need experienced leaders representing us on complex issues like water, healthcare, global warming, schools and the budget. (Desert Sun 1/20/08)
Proposition 93 strikes the balance the California Legislature needs. The Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act would reduce the number of years members serve in the Legislature from 14 to 12. But all the time can be served in one house or the other, or a combination of the two.
Conservative and progressive editorial boards are echoing a similar statement: Prop 93 is better than the status quo.
Today in the LA Times, the Editorial Board endorsed Proposition 93. In the end, it's not a huge deal. Newspaper endorsements have been gradually declining in importance over the last 20 years or so. That decline was seen starkly in the 2006 Democratic primary, where Steve Westly got 49 of the top 50 newspaper endorsements. (I think that's the right figure, but I could be wrong on the exact figures.)
Nonetheless, the Times editorial makes the argument that I've been (at least attempting) to make on Prop. 93 for a while. It's not perfect, but it puts California in a better position for the long run. From the Times editorial, over the flip.
oftening his past opposition to changes to California's term-limits law, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is endorsing a February ballot measure that would allow many sitting lawmakers to run for office again this year rather than be forced to leave the Legislature.
Schwarzenegger, who as a candidate in 2003 supported California's existing term-limits law as a shield against "special interests" obtaining too much power, reversed himself in an essay released today that said the original law "went too far."
"Under the current system, our elected officials are not given the time they need to reach their full potential as public servants," Schwarzenegger wrote in an essay to be published in The Times on Tuesday. "Imagine what would happen if we told a big-city police chief or a sheriff he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on."
The op-ed announcing the endorsement is here, and it amusingly includes the line "It takes time to learn how to govern effectively." You said it, Arnold, not me. Also, considering you're in your fifth year, what's your excuse?
The No on 93 campaign is kind of freaking out about this, calling it the result of a "deal on healthcare."
Recently, I had the chance to sit down, errm, stand up, with former state controller (and former eBay exec, and former gubernatorial candidate, and current green venture capitalist) Steve Westly about proposition 93. Mr. Westly had an interesting take, which I think you'll see from these videos. You can play through all of them in a row, or watch just one by selecting a video from the playlist.
I just saw the first ad for Yes on 93 on cable; you can view it here. The No on 93 folks also have a couple ads cut; they're available here.
Unfortunately, it's going to be very hard for both sides to get their message out. Not only are we going to start seeing at least some resources from the Presidential candidates at some point, but the tribal gaming initiatives are due to swamp every other ballot measure and take all of the oxygen out of the room. I'm already sick of their ads.
On Friday, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, one of the big four tribes who stand to gain from passage of Propositions 94 to 97 and 17,000 new slot machines, contributed $30.8 million in support of these propositions. This brings the total to the yes on 94-97 campaign to $68 million dollars, dwarfing not only the amount raised by opponents who seek to overturn the legislature's approval of the slot machine compacts. But all contributions made on the other ballot measures being considered February 5, 2008-including term limits.
This may be only the beginning of money spent, almost exclusively by the tribes on the yes side.
The second largest amount of money on ballot propositions in this cycle is on the "no" side of the Prop 94-97 gambling propositions, and most of it also comes from tribes-those who are not part of the arrangement with the four tribes. At least $11.5 million of the opposition funding comes from "Tribes for Fair Play" out of what appears to be $28 million raised in opposition. There is substantial money- millions each from race tracks and labor that make up the balance. A significant portion of the money raised by opponents was spent on qualifying the four referenda for the ballot.
Russo moved the number down to $54.5 million after further study. But that's still at least five times of what any other proposition has.
So it's unclear who this helps, but to the extent that people are thinking about the ballot initiatives at the polls, it won't be Props. 92 or 93, it seems.
