So look at who’s trying to change voter approved term limits!
Is it a rush of voters fed up by term limits, or is it politicians and their counterparts in various lobbies and self-styled “civic groups”?
The answer is clear.
The voters want term limits and when given a chance they will approve them. Californians approved them for state office holders in 1990 and Angelenos voted for them in 1993. In 2002, statewide voters refused to change the current statewide term limit law. L.A. County voters then approved them in 2004 with more than 60 percent of the vote.
When term limits come up for a vote they pass.
So why change? Proponents of change argue that term-limits didn’t fix the system. But term limit proponents never promised that suddenly politics would be cleaned up. After all, the same complaint can be made of the numerous campaign finance reforms, ethics commissions and fair campaign pledges. The issue of how we draw political boundaries through reapportionment, which allows politicians to pick their voters, also cries out for reform.
Term limit opponents complain that politicians seek other offices at a faster rate. This complaint misses the benefit that term limits has on political systems. The dash of politicians to seek higher or lower office is healthy in several ways. It keeps politicians grounded to the real world. When politicians have to run for another office in the next few years, they will be more responsive to voters’ needs especially if they don’t want to face the perceived horror of private employment.
Raising awareness
It also adds new dimensions to leaders’ knowledge as state legislators become council members and council members become legislators. This has happened in Los Angeles. Critics of term limits claim this high turnover is harmful because politicians now aren’t concerned about the long-range future. As if every office holder was selflessly serving the public interest prior to term limits.
Isn’t it also possible that state legislators that served as city council members, school board members and other locally elected officials are more aware of the problems caused by the state and more inclined to act accordingly? Differing experiences in different offices broadens their perspective beyond their current district.
Conversely, city council members who were state legislators understand the system better and can help guide legislation they want. Rightly or wrongly, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was in a position to promote his version of school reform because he once was the speaker of the Assembly. He also was forced to act boldly and quickly. Tom Bradley didn’t focus on the problems of Los Angeles Unified, but, facing term limits, Richard Riordan and Antonio Villaraigosa have.
Prior to the success of the term limit movement, we had politicians that stayed in office two decades or more. Challenging them was difficult because they had the power, name identification, staff, organization and, of course, money. This was blatantly unfair to districts that had representatives of less tenure. These politicians wouldn’t be turned out of office except under extreme circumstances. It was in the voters’ self interest to keep these politicians around. Why should they vote out a powerful office holder who had a clear advantage in securing benefits for their district, when the end result would be to further empower a politician elsewhere? That explains the seeming contradiction of voters approving term limits while simultaneously re-electing powerful politicians.
It’s also why term limits are needed across the board in all communities and why voters approve them whenever possible. With term limits, voters have more freedom to pick a representative without worrying a district will be shortchanged. In Los Angeles a newly elected council member will have at the most a six-year disadvantage to older colleagues, who are on their way out. This benefits the entire city.
The current attempt before the council to extend term limits is a ruse designed by self-serving politicians and their allies to squeeze out a little more job security.
If the critics were truly honest about term limits and their impact on the political system, why would they push a proposal that increases the two-term limit to three? This would only minimally slow down the alleged problems caused by term limits. Unfortunately, the benefits of term limits will be the real casualty of this proposal. Voters should reject term limit change if placed on the ballot.
Mike Spence is president of the California Republican Assembly, a conservative GOP activist group based in Monrovia.
