Term Limits Limited?
I recently attended the California Council of Churches legislative lobbying day, good people of faith out to nag our happy Democratic majority about issues surrounding health care, immigration reform, marriage equality and other good progressive causes of the day. During our visit Ie heard an interesting rumor concerning term limits.The buzz was that there might be an attempt to modify term limits to allow members to stay in one house for up to twelve years. The idea is to provide some institutional knowledge and party loyalty and connection to each house, which is sadly lacking under the current system of six years (three terms) allowed in the Assembly, eight years (two terms) allowed in the Senate.
Progressives generally hate term limits. The argument is that it creates a weak legislature where expertise is lost as soon as its obtained, institutional knowledge is non-existent and leaders hold no authority over members, and therefore makes it a lot harder to get members to work together on the hard problems.
I don't oppose term limits, as many good progressives seem to do. I think the principle of trying to retain citizen legislators instead of decades-long political professionals is a good one. Term limits have also opened up the legislature to more closely reflect the state.
The most incredible development has been the openly gay Lavender Caucus, something which would have been unheard of just a few decades ago. The constant turnover means constant opportunity for more people, and it's produced a good progressive result. (The unique exception is the reduction in the number of African American legislators, but that's due in good part to the dispersal of black voters.)
So, term limits are good for some things, but bad in others. Like most things.
Among the bad is the decline in party loyalty and control. When everyone's a short-timer, everyone comes in already looking out for their next job. Party discipline is weakened, "everyone is a free agent", as one volunteer lobbyist stated at the California Council of Churches gathering.
Officeholding under term limits becomes a game of musical chairs, Assembly to Senate, Senate to statewide or other (like the Board of Equalization) or even back to local politics, as Helen Thomson recently did, swapping her termed out Assembly seat for her old spot on the Yolo County board. It gets weird.
Giving legislators more time in one house could be one way to get around this by offering almost the same number of years in legislative service without the need to keep an eye out for the next move. It would help build institutional loyalty and help foster closer personal relationships between legislators of different factions or parties. It's an idea worth considering.
The public has made it clear that they like term limits. They even rejected giving themselves the power to make an exception for their own legislators, as proposed by John Burton in a recent ballot proposition. As much as many rail against them, they're here to stay. So we're left with fixing what we've got as a progressive response.
According to my most recent discussions, this idea is still in development. No one yet wants to champion it, as no one yet wants to risk potential backlash among their own voters. It will probably come out of the Senate, as senators can take a risk on an election cycle where they're not on the ballot.
If you're interested, and you should be, contact your Assemblymember or state Senator and let them know how to you feel about restructuring term limits. Go to:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html
to see who you need to contact:
posted by Terry Preston @ 7:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home