Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Journalistic Coverage of the ‘Term Limits’ Initiative Has Been Pitiful (and Irresponsible)

towashington 089.gif By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

The press corps in California deserves condemnation for the manner in which they are covering the effort to change term limits by initiative.

The initiative would allow individuals to seek election and reelection to the same branch of the legislature for a period of 12 years. Currently they may seek election and reelection to different branches of the legislature for a total of 14 years. So the initiative limits the current lifetime ban on reelection to two fewer years.

That means the issue for voters is whether a trade of 12 possible years in one house of the legislature versus 14 years in two Houses (current law) is a good trade – and why?

No news story or editorial has focused on this fact.

The title and summary of the ballot measure adopted by Attorney General Brown makes it clear that this is the issue.

But the press corps reported only the allegations that the title and summary was drawn up with partisan concern. Or to favor specific individuals. That continued to be the story even after the Republican Supreme Court threw out those allegations.

Because the proposed change would allow the current leaders of the Senate and Assembly to seek additional time in office through the reelection process (which may explain their support for the initiative), the press corps obviously felt an obligation to explain that fact to voters.

But the next step was the manipulation of the issue by the Governor. Because Legislative leaders supported the initiative, Schwarzenegger attempted to use that fact to extort action from them on redistricting. Because the press corps generally supports changes in the redistricting process, this extortion was not condemned (as it would have been had the issue been casino gambling). When the redistricting initiatives failed to receive support, the press corps sought to punish Legislative Leaders by focusing on other actions they took, explaining that those actions would hinder the effort to modify term limits.

All inside baseball, and very irresponsible.

Are we saying that term limits produces less responsible, honest, effective, aged, energetic, well dressed Speakers than was the case prior to the imposition of term limits?

What has been the impact of the current term limits restrictions on the output of the legislature? Quantity of legislation? Quality (by what standard) of legislation?

Has the current system saved the people money?

What has been the impact of the current law on legislative staff? Would the proposed change impact that effect? In a positive or negative manner?

Would the changes proposed alter the relationship between the Assembly and Senate?
How? To whose benefit?

Would the changes proposed alter the relationship between the Legislative Branch and the Governor? If so, how and to the benefit of whom?

Have any professional students of legislatures been solicited for opinion editorials on the proposed changes? (As opposed to off-the-cuff comments by the “usually reliable sources).

The legislature is responsible, among other things, for overseeing billions in spending. Will this proposed change affect that process?

These are serious questions. A press corps that provides an evaluation of an initiative from the parochial and short term perspective of its impact on one or two politicians is hardly serving the public’s interest.

Bill Cavala was Deputy Director of the Assembly Speaker’s Office of Member Services where he worked for over 30 years.

He attended undergraduate and graduate school in the 1960’s and received a doctorate in political science at UC Berkeley. He taught political science at UC Berkeley during the 1970's while he worked part-time for the State Assembly.

Cavala left teaching at UC Berkeley and went to work for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown in 1981 until his tenure as Speaker ended in 1995, and he has worked for his five successors as Speaker up to and including Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Mr. Cavala manages election campaigns for Democratic candidates.

Posted on November 19, 2007

Comments

Cavala is dead on with this analysis. Usually the press accepts "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" argument but here the argument seems to be "don't let the certain individuals benefit even if the changes are good."

A term limits for redistriciting trade would be the sort of quid pro quo that newspapers would ordinarily oppose, but, as Cavala points out, since this is "good government", they are logically inconsistent.

But let me explain clearly what giving up the redistricting power means for Democrats, and, more to the point, the poor or California. The papers have been trumpeting the "10 billion dollar shortfall", without any any mention of the fact that over a five-year period, the budget is more-or-less in balance. Without the ability to withstand the baseless Republican charge of "Democrats giving money to illegals" (and look what Poizner's planning with respect to insurance) the "responsble" outcome would be to gut social services, a Republican dream going back to the early 80's in California. The Democrats, facing electoral defeat, would cave (as they did in 1994 over three strikes). But with districts which can withstand anti-government demogoguery, the Democrats can stand firm. And it's not true that Republicans cannot win in these districts, but Republicans who are anti-choice, anti-governement and anti-unit rule cannot. With the 2/3rd rule, Republicans can take extremist positions. This is the reform that should be taking place--elimination of this anti-democratic rule.

Posted by: publius at November 19, 2007 03:08 PM

Well Bill, you're right on. Asking all those questions causes us to think in a larger sphere and put things in perspective. I don't think "term limits" is really a simple thing.
Thanks,
Larry Gallup

Posted by: Larry Gallup at November 22, 2007 10:32 PM

Vote NO on this Proposition 93 "Term Limits" Initiative!

Of course this is a politically motivated AND personally motivated "initiative":

--It is funded by a democratic coalition.

--It has democratic operatives in its initiative association, including a "former" high level Nunez staffer.

--Speaker Nunez asked ONLY democrats in the legislature to chip in $50K each to support this "initiative". If it is such a good idea, why didn't he ask ALL legislators to chip in, including republicans?

-California approved voter term limits already in place NOW will be superseeded by Speaker Nunez and Senate Pro Tem Perata and a host of other politicians. If shortening the length of politician terms is such a good idea as proposed by the democrats, why will it then NOT apply to those who will be termed out next time around? Perata, Nunez, etc.?

The "transition period" aspect argument is bogus-see below.

Could this "initiative" in fact be a selfish way for Nunez and Perata to stay in office longer than existing term limits? Are there no other democrats able to step up into the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem positions? No democrats good enough to fill in during the alleged "transition period"?

Sure, Nunez and Perata would win reelection in THEIR DISTRICTS as they are heavily democratic. However, th egreater voter contingent in the entire state has no say as to who will be Speaker or Senate Pro Tem.

Why isn't there a "Term Limit" on those two positions being proposed?

This is not honest legislation being attempted here at all, but a selfish style to the maximum extreme.

Posted by: Jay Gould at November 23, 2007 06:01 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker