Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

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

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

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

Books

I’m Voting Yes on Prop 93 So California Legislators Can Focus on Their Jobs

Experience Needed in California’s Difficult Times

By Scott Wiener

Over the past 30-plus years, the Republican Party has had core goals of first convincing people that government can't do anything good and then convincing them to tear government down. From Prop 13 to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts to the fake eminent domain "reform" that they keep putting on the ballot, Republicans have been working overtime for decades to prevent government from being effective. Indeed, the belief, or lack thereof, in giving government the tools and ability to solve problems may be the chief philosophical divide between the parties.

Term limits have been an indispensable part of the right-wing effort to get government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub," to quote Grover Norquist. And, in California, term limits have produced great results for these anti-government zealots. By limiting members of the Assembly to six years in office and Senators to eight years, term limits proponents have ensured that our state legislators (a) have a very difficult time gaining expertise in the extremely complicated issues facing our state, (b) are outmatched by lobbyists, who are now a major source of institutional memory in Sacramento, and (c) begin to think about positioning themselves for their next office the second they take their oath of office on day one. In addition – and this is most stark in the Assembly – we have a choice of either having a new Speaker every two years or having a Speaker who's been in the Assembly for less than a year, as was the case when Fabian Nunez was elected. Other Assembly and Senate leaders and committee chairs have been similarly new to their chambers when they took on these positions governing the sixth largest economy in the world.

This self-destructive and self-defeating system – one whose goal is to prevent the Legislature from being effective – has to change, and Prop 93 will go a long way in making that change happen. By allowing Assemblymembers and Senators to stay in their offices for twelve years, we address every single shortcoming of term limits. Members can gain significant expertise in twelve years, both in the art of lawmaking and in particular subject matters. Members will be able to compete with lobbyists much more effectively simply by being around longer, knowing how things work, and not having to take leaps of faith when a lobbyist assures them that "it's always been done this way." They will be able to focus on their jobs instead of quickly thinking about the next job. And, we will have legislative leaders who have both experience and an ability to stay in their leadership roles for a period of time. By allowing our legislators to actually learn how to be good and effective members, we will all benefit.

Some progressives have criticized Prop 93 for reducing the overall amount of time that legislators can stay in Sacramento and for grandfathering in some current Senators, who will end up being able to spend up to eighteen years in the Legislature. I don't think that either of these issues comes close to outweighing the significant benefits of allowing members to stay in one chamber for twelve years.

The reduction in time from fourteen to twelve years should not raise alarms for progressives, given that this reduction only applies to a few fortunate legislators. Many Assemblymembers (at least half) are not lucky enough to jump to the Senate after serving in the Assembly, which means that they only serve six years in Sacramento. Moreover, of the Assemblymembers who do make the jump, some do so after serving only four years in the Assembly, depending on the timing of when the Senate seat opens up; in other words, those members only serve twelve years. But, regardless of whether some legislators will end up serving two years less in Sacramento under Prop 93, on a basic policy level, it is better to have legislators spend twelve years in one house than to get elected to the Assembly and then spend the next six years plotting a jump to the Senate – six years that could be spent trying to figure out ways to fund our community colleges, build high-speed rail, and provide health care to poor and working class folks.

The grandfathering of certain Senators is problematic, but it doesn't concern me that much. This is a structural fix – one that will benefit our children and grandchildren. I see no reason to undermine it simply because for the next few years, a handful of Senators will get an extra perk. Indeed, as someone who dislikes term limits, I find it hard to get worked up about allowing some strong Democrats to spend extra time working on solving California's problems.

California is on the verge of being a mess, and that mess is a direct result of the (I hope temporary) triumph of the "drown government in the bathtub" conservatives. We spend so much time just trying to defeat their crazy ballot measures, and we now have an opportunity to make progress in the opposite direction, by improving our Legislature immeasurably. I don't see how we can pass up this opportunity. I say "Yes on 93."

Scott Wiener is an attorney and chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party.

Posted on January 16, 2008

Comments

I’m Voting NO on Prop 93 So The 34 Term-Limited California Legislators Can Focus on Their Current Jobs And Not On Their Future Spoils From Holding Political Office.

The real questions voters need to ask themselves before voting on Prop. 93 is: 1) Do we want to allow the current ineffective career politicians more time to remain in office? 2) Do we allow them more time to gain expertise in building their power and war chests for their next move in the game of political musical chairs?

Please vote No on Prop. 93.

Posted by: neotrebor at January 17, 2008 09:22 AM

Neotrebor, you have this issue all wrong. We expect our state legislators to master the budget, global warming, prisons, water issues, health care, education, transportation, agriculture and more, but bind them with strict term limits that leave them little time to be effective.

It is current term limits that force legislators to choose between being effective for just a few short years, or focusing on their next move. Proposition 93 alleviates this pressure, and lets legislators focus on the business of governing.

This broken system of strict term limits is what got us into the fiscal crisis we face today. I plan to do what is best for California by voting for reform, and saying Yes on Proposition 93 this coming February 5th.

Posted by: Emmanuel at January 19, 2008 01:33 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