Uniform Term Limits--What We Need in California Now

Contrary to the impression given by this article, Virginia does not have term limits for General Assembly members. In fact, our longest-serving member was has served continuously in the House of Delegates since taking his seat in 1962.

The confusion may be over Virginia's provisions for election of the Governor. Under the state constitution, a Governor is prohibited from being elected to successive terms. To date, only one Governor has run for a second term after sitting out a term (Mills E. Godwin, Jr., elected in 1965 as a Democrat, and again in 1973 as a Republican).

No other state offices in Virginia are subject to term limits.

The 8 year Assembly plan is a great idea. The problem with that would be getting the Senate to agree. They are going to want something in it for them. So we muddle on...

There is no "problem" with the existing, voter approved term limits except in the mind of politicians and those who cater to them. Leave existing term limits in California where they are currently at. Concentrate your misguided energies on redistricting and getting special interest major bucks out of political campaigns...

Well, Sid, this voter would like others from other districts to not tell him who he can vote for in his Assembly, State Senate, and other districts. It is not just about politicians or those who cater to them.

If folks in Fresno don't want to re-elect someone after a number of terms in office, they should vote him or her out, but they shouldn't tell me I can't vote to keep someone in office. So I have a different point of view on this, and would like other changes made to make elected officials more responsive to their districts.

Virginia - thank you for the Clarification, I was referring to the statewide rules in North Carolina and Virginia. Specifically, the rule that enacts term limits but not lifetime term limits.

Sid - we voters were so desperate for term limits when we initially passed this law that we took the first chance we had to enact them. Unfortunately, the first offer is not always the best and after a number of state crisis (energy, budget, etc.) there is a clear need for more institutional knowledge. Increasing the limit from six to eight years may seem like a minor amount, but it could significantly change things for the better in Sacramento - and create fair standards uniform to all of the other elected state offices.

Frank,

We already HAVE "voters" from other districts telling us who we can and cannot vote for! They are called special interests. Care to comment on how much campaign cash came from OUTSIDE the districts and even the state to prop up "local" (by geographic home of reference only) politicians? How come Nunez got over $2 million in 2006 and he was running UNAPPOSED? If they fix campaign finance FIRST then I'll entertain a revision of voter enacted term limits afterward. But can you see the connection: A politician in the pocket of campaign cash/special interests today will be one EVEN LONGER without term limits. To get "better" at their political job with more time in it is BS...any institutional knowlege gained by an increase in term limits would mostly manifest itself in even more cash connections in return for legislative favors. Plus after 6 years in the assembly, that person can run for state senate and after termed out yet another "down ticket" political position. Isn't some 12-20 years in some state office more than enough?

Sorry, UNOPPOSED...

"The 8 year Assembly plan is a great idea. The problem with that would be getting the Senate to agree. They are going to want something in it for them. So we muddle on..."

I think that creating a longer stay in the Assembly may create incentives for some members to stay in the lower house and not challenge sitting Senators right away. It also gives Senators options with more longevity should they choose to serve in the Assembly at a later date (as is becoming common in term-limited California).

Sid: I agree with you that something needs to be done about campaign contributions--and there are many articles written by me and others about this. But I fail to see how it is better to have a legislator who gets there by this type of campaign contributions there for only a limited time period, where if anything the influence of this money is more powerfuland the third house is given more advantages over record crops of newcomers. Term limits does not apply to these "special interests" and they remain with their own institutional memory and the money they have as state legislators come and go.

Frank, I will admit my shortcomings and say I do not understand most of what you just said.

But I will repeat that a politician, democrat OR republican that has established lines of special interest/campaign cash in their first or second term will NO DOUBT keep it flowing in their subsequent terms from assembly to senate to other higher state office. I will challenge progressives who read this blog to look at their own folks sources of campaign cash, how it is distributed and ask themselves if they are happy with that. If winning at all costs is the goal , then there is your answer. If striving for impartial legislation without the influence of money is your goal, then evaluate your loyalty accordingly.

Republicans get money from rich people. That's because they support policies that benefit the rich.

Democrats have to scramble for the money that allows them to campaign and win office to help the non-rich.

In the 30's and 40's that money came from organized crime and communist sources (and gave the nation Franklin D. Roosevelt).

It's not who pays the bill, it's how you act after election

Bill, you really do believe your own retoric don't you?

I saw major corporations, law firms, railroads, Indian Tribes (gaming casinos), airlines, unions galore and multiple political action committees, all special interests, give millions to democratic state legislators for last years elections. Many of those same democrats were running unopposed or in "safe" gerrymandered districts that you are also not in favor of overhaul. Some scrabmbling for cash, huh?

Of course, the CEO's and leadership of these same organizations are certainly "rich" themselves and in the unions cases use portions of their dues for political issues that the rank and file "poor" employee may not support.

Ask anyone on the street to name rich people and their majority answer will turn out to be democrats...who like to spend other folks money (tax dollars) more than their republican counterparts on transient-feel good issues. But republicans/conservatives, according to ABC's John Stossel, give way more to charities than liberals/democrats do, probably as they feel in control over who is getting it (appreciated) over who gets back in line for yet another handout.

How come LBJ's War on Poverty from the 60's isn't over yet?

I will counter your last sentence, "It is not who pays the bill, it's how you act after the election" with FOLLOW THE MONEY.

What I think is missing from Edward Espinoza's comments is that with the current proposal on the table to extend term limits will do is not grant a 133% increase in their time in office. What it does is allow them to serve in one house: Assembly or Senate for a term not to exceed 14 years. Currently a member can serve eight years in the Senate and six years in the Assembly.
I think it is clear that Californian's lose with the current structure.

Extending the term limits to 8 years would be an excellent idea if the electoral system actually worked in California. With the districts as Jerrymandered as they are, less than 5 seats in the California legislature have ever changed hands in decades. The 6 year term limits were a response to a broken electoral system. Unfortunately, now legislators just simply name their successors who continue to win by insane margins.

Even in the 2006 midterm elections, where the Democrats won in nearly evey state by a landslide, only one Republican lost his seat in California. That definitely shows something's wrong because this is one of the bluest states in the country! I'm not even a Democrat and I was surprised. So before we start talking about extending term limits why can't we just get down to what the REAL problem is: redistricting.

Post a comment

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.