Posted on 01/14/2008 8:58:33 PM PST by NormsRevenge
In a surprising move, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed Proposition 93 on Monday despite earlier statements that he would not support a change in legislators' term limits unless it was linked to a redistricting measure.
"Proposition 93 is good public policy, irrespective of redistricting, and on its own it will go a long way toward improving the quality of state government in California," Schwarzenegger said in an op-ed piece scheduled to be published Tuesday in the Los Angeles Times.
Proposition 93 opponents accused the Republican governor of caving in to pressure from Democratic legislative leaders as part of a backroom deal that would allow Schwarzenegger to generate support for his $14 billion health care reform plan. Proposition 93 is on the Feb. 5 ballot.
"It is a sign of the dysfunctionality of the Legislature that it's self-serving leadership has held the governor hostage on health care issues so that it may leverage him into helping them remain in power by loosening term limits," said Kevin Spillane, a spokesman for the no-on-93 campaign.
A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, Julie Soderlund, called Spillane's comments "pointless rhetoric" and said the governor was endorsing the ballot measure "so the people of California see more productivity out of Sacramento and less screaming."
The endorsement follows the Assembly's approval last month of a health care expansion supported by Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. The measure is awaiting action in the Senate.
Currently, lawmakers can serve up to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate.
Proposition 93 would reduce the maximum number of years someone could serve from 14 years to 12 in most instances but allow all 12 years to be served in one house.
It also would allow three dozen lawmakers who otherwise would be termed out of office this year to run for re-election. They include Nunez, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, and Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin.
The measure's supporters say it would end the experience drain and musical-chairs atmosphere that exists in the Capitol, as nearly a third of the Legislature is termed out every two years and lame-duck legislators maneuver to run for new offices.
But opponents say it's a deceptive proposal that is intended to mislead voters into thinking they are shortening term limits when they're actually increasing the amount of time most current lawmakers would spend in the Legislature.
Schwarzenegger has not previously taken a position on Proposition 93, but he has said several times that he wanted a change in term limits linked to a measure that would strip lawmakers of the power to redraw their own legislative districts after each national census.
Last February, Schwarzenegger said he would not support a term limits measure if it was on the ballot without an accompanying redistricting proposal: "Part of (a political reform package) could be term limits. But just to be out there by itself, I don't support that," he said then.
Schwarzenegger attempted to convince voters in 2005 to give that power to a commission made up of retired judges, saying it was a conflict of interest for lawmakers to draw their own districts. But voters soundly rejected the proposal, Proposition 77.
After the election, Nunez and Perata promised to seek redistricting reform but never followed through.
"We need redistricting reform to make the political system more competitive and more representative of the citizens of California," Schwarzenegger said in the op-ed piece. "We need campaign finance reform to limit the influence of money in politics, and it is time to reform legislative term limits."
He said the current term limits don't give legislators the "time they need to reach their full potential as public servants. Just as they get seasoned in one house, they know their time is beginning to run out and they must start positioning themselves to run for a new office," he added.
"Imagine what would happen if we told a big city police chief or sheriff that he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on. Or if we told teachers they had to switch careers just as they started to accumulate enough experience and wisdom to really connect with their students."
He also said the current term limits make lawmakers too dependent on special interests and political parties.
Gale Kaufman, chief strategist for the yes-on-93 campaign, applauded the governor for endorsing the measure. She said he was "in the perfect position to understand the need to have the most experienced, effective legislators helping him lead California."
Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, which voted to oppose Proposition 93 at its convention last year, declined to comment on Schwarzenegger's piece because he hadn't read it.
Just say No to 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 and 97
Sniff, sniff... somethin’ smells funny!
... the governor was endorsing the ballot measure “so the people of California see more productivity out of Sacramento and less screaming.”
—
drivel.. if we saw any more productivity out of Sacramento, we could change its name to EUropia
The Governator is simply Gray Davis with dyed hair. Just as big a spender. Just as big an idiot. No principles whatsoever.
How about we lay off everyone who works in Sacramento for two years and see if the quality of life in the state drastically improves. The budget sure would.
Thank you Gov. Sitzpinkler.
Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/93_02_2008.aspx
Summary
Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature (compared to 14 years currently). Unlike the current system, these years could be served without regard to whether they were in the Assembly or Senate. In other words, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses. (As under current law, an individual could serve additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.)
Existing Members of the Legislature could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house (regardless of how many years were already served in the other house). This could result in some current Members serving longer than 14 years in the Legislature.
You will enjoy living under the golden gate bridge once spring arrives.
Hey Norm....I just heard on the radio this special election will cost US, you, me ... all of us, $80,000,000.
I thought we were tight on money????
I thought we were tight on money????
—
It just seems like a lot of money. :-}
Ahhhhhhhhh........I SEE!
*slaps self on forehead*
:)
He should change his name to Binrolled
In general term limits are bad for conservatism. All institutions slowly move to the left over time until they eventually go bankrupt. The speed of this shift is related to the speed of leadership turnover. For new leaders to be elected they must give away part of the store or pander to special interests. Long term leadership promotes stability and tradition which are conservative values. The only reason the socialists are against term limits in California is because they currently control the state. I understand the urge to throw the communist bums out, but terms limits aren’t the way to do it.
The sad part is that a lot of voters didn’t put conservative leaders in place for those long term leadership positions.
between voters blessing themselves with billions in services and mandates and leaders only to eager to pile on for their own donors, term limits can only do so much.
this is not a step ahead, imo. I don’t know if the electorate is smart enough to tell that tho.
To date, nothing said historically has been proved untrue except: "the governor is a conservative and his administration will get California going in the right direction".
Here his Arnie’s op-ed, as referenced in the article. He goes on and on about needing more seasoned legislators and the need to groom policy experts, but the initiative overall *reduces* the combined number of years they can serve in both houses. Oxymoron. This transparent effort to keep his buddy Nunez and Perata in office is almost criminal. I hope everyone sees through it and those two are on the street looking for a new job (until Perata’s relocation to prison, of course).
I'd be opposed to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.