LEADER OF ‘HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYER’ GROUP ADMITS HE’S A HIRED GUN WHO DEFENDED TERM LIMITS – WHICH HAS LITTLE TO

Bill,

If term limits are so bad, then why even take it to the courts? If the legislature puts a complete repeal of 140 on the ballot (which they would eagerly do) the voters would overwhelmingly pass it, right? After all, term limits have been a disaster.

Of course, we all know the reason proponants won't do this. Because they know as well as everyone else that voters like their term limits. So instead, they are trying to put it in the hands of the courts so the law can be overturned in spite of the voters.

The hubris of these legislators who supposedly represent the people is amazing.

You are right that it would be a tough election to overturn term limits and maybe for good reason, although i think a lot of the problem is political posturing which has made the road to change look so daunting. But it still could happen and I think that the loss of experts in several different areas (such as for example domestic security issues) may change that some day. The bottom line is that Prop 140 was a way of saying voters were too stupid to make their own decisions, so I wouldn't get too "holier than thou" about term limits opponents going to the courts first to get around limits.

Why, among all the comments about how bad term limits are for legislators, is no one calling for an end to term limits on statewide officers and the US President?

I notice that the initiative the legislature is having its most trusted lobbyists circulate only changes the limits on the legislature.

Could it be because too many of those legislators are planning on running for statewide office in a couple of years, so they want to be sure term limits clear out the current incumbents?

Sounds mighty selective and self-serving to me.

Bill reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the previous litigation. I was not a "witness." I was the attorney who argued the case for my client -- in this case, Pete Schabarum. Indeed, there were no witnesses because there were no facts in dispute. The entire case, all "causes of action" asserted by Speaker Brown, et al. were rejected AS A MATTER OF LAW. That is why Bill's comment that there is new evidence today is as meaningless as it is irrelevant.

Is there a legitimate policy debate over the efficacy of term limits? Sure. But the forum for that debate is squarely in the polical arena, not the courts.

Post a comment