The Most Important Blog... Ever

In addition to giving California more clout in the Presidential race, the move of our presidential primary election to February 5, 2008 also will give us the opportunity to reform term limits for our state legislators. Let's take a moment to consider the new term limit proposal, which was just recently made official.

Term limits have been a controversial idea from the time they were first proposed in the early 90's, and today their novelty seems to be wearing off. The basic idea behind term limits, as I understand it, is to check corruption and allow for a more representative legislature by making room for legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities. These reasons were enough to convince voters in several states across the country in the 90's, and term limits have been in place in 15 states, including, of course, California. California's term limits are among the most restrictive, allowing for just three two-year terms in the Assembly (six years of service total) and only two four-year terms in the state Senate (eight years of service). Across the country, term limits have become less popular in the last decade, with six states deciding to repeal or cancel their term limits provisions since 1997: Idaho, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Now, California is considering term limits reform as well. The promise of making the legislature more representative through term limits has not panned out nearly as well as expected. Several studies on term limits, including this one (pdf) from the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, and this one (pdf) from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers show that term limits have either a minimal or slightly negative effect on getting more legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities into state legislatures.

Another unforeseen side-effect of term limits is also receiving attention lately: the decline of California's influence in Washington, DC. Karl Kurtz notes that term limits have meant a decline in the connections between lawmakers in Sacramento and lawmakers in DC. Why? Kurtz explains that "with six- and eight-year term limits in the state Assembly and Senate… the turnover of legislators means that members of Congress… soon lose touch with those in the state capitol." The lack of influence in DC translates into lower funding from Washington for critical California priorities like schools, infrastructure, disaster readiness, and anything else that requires funding.

So it's good news that a recent poll (pdf) on the term limits reform proposal show a majority of Californians are ready for a change. The proposal's wording, which was just made official this week, is good news for reform:

LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.

The reform will keep term limits in place, but it will allow for more experienced legislators to stay in the Assembly. It should allow for better connections between Sacramento and DC, and the proposal should have nothing but a positive impact on making the legislature more representative of California's diverse population.

From the Courage Campaign