Facing the end of both his term in the state assembly and as its Speaker, Fabian Núñez is pushing a series of “legislative reforms,” as reported in today’s LA Times. The problem is that these “reforms” will do little to produce actual improvements in governance – and if Núñez is interested in securing his “legacy” as the article suggests, he’s taking the wrong approach.

Núñez is trying to put three initiatives on the November ballot – a term limits extension that would only apply to legislators who are not in their final terms (so that Núñez himself won’t benefit); a ban on fundraising during budget negotiations – and a redistricting measure.

Núñez is teaming up with Yacht Party leader Mike Villines on all of these reform initiatives, including redistricting. The article does not detail the Núñez redistricting measure, but noted that he (rightly) objected to the Schwarzenegger plan’s possibility of weakening majority-minority districts – and that Núñez believes the best way to defeat Arnold’s redistricting plan is to provide his own alternative. The article also notes that Núñez has $5.1 million to spend on these accounts (assuming he doesn’t give in to the pressure to return that to the CDP).

But nowhere in Núñez’ legacy plan is there anything regarding the 2/3 rule for budget and tax votes in the Legislature, by far the most important reform that the Legislature needs. $5.1 million would provide a major boost to an effort to eliminate the 2/3 rule and restore sanity to the state budget process. Given the likelihood of a Yacht Party holdout on the budget this summer public support for a 2/3 elimination would be high this November.

Instead Núñez is wasting his time on less relevant issues. Term limits reform would be nice, but it’s not the state’s highest priority at the moment. Same with fundraising during budget talks.

Most importantly, the entire redistricting reform movement is a sham, built upon completely unproven assumptions and on the unstated but key desire to reduce the number of Democrats in Sacramento. More on that below.

The LA Times article repeats the usual spin of the redistricting reformers:

Reformers say districts with more evenly balanced populations of Republican and Democratic voters would create more competitive elections and encourage legislators to pursue compromise instead of partisanship.

Nowhere does the article discuss the critics of these reformers, so I guess I’ll have to do that myself.

For six years I lived in a state – Washington – that redistricts in exactly the way Arnold has proposed. Washington has been using this method to draw its districts since 1983. But the Washington legislature exhibits just as much partisan rancor as the California legislature. Republicans and Democrats rarely compromise in Olympia – instead they fight with each other just as often as they do in Sacramento.

Nor are elections particularly competitive in most Washington districts. Currently Democrats hold 2/3 majorities in the state legislature. Virtually all of Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma have long been Democratic strongholds, which has now been extended to all of King County. Very few Republicans now represent any part of the Puget Sound region.

This is because partisanship is NOT a product of legislative districts. It is instead a fact of American political life and has been ever since Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson formed the first political parties in 1792.

The notion that Republicans and Democrats are different because of non-competitive elections is absurd. The difference comes from very deeply held political beliefs. And the notion that the Republican Party in particular might become more centrist with redistricting reform is totally ignorant of the way that party has operated for the last 40 years. Since the conservative takeover of GOP institutions in the 1960s, moderate Republicanism has been dead in California. The only Republicans who survive primary elections are conservatives.

And it’s going to be very difficult to draw districts that would give Democrats a chance to defeat such wingnuts. This is the other colossal flaw of redistricting – Republicans and Democrats tend to live near each other. It is simply impossible to draw competitive districts in San Francisco, the East Bay, Los Angeles proper, southern Orange County, Bakersfield, or Temecula – without engaging in gerrymandering of a more dramatic sort than has ever been done by legislators themselves.

The only supporters of redistricting reform are those who believe California sends too many Democrats to the state legislature, and who believe that we can send more Republicans with “more competitive districts.” Realize that Republicans have 12% fewer registered voters in this state than Democrats, a gap that is widening. It is not possible to make all or even most districts “competitive.” California voters have made their choices and we should respect those choices.

Redistricting reform failed in 2005, and it will likely fail in 2008. If Núñez wants to use his $5.1 million warchest for something useful, for something to build a legacy around, he should pursue changing the 2/3 rule. This is by far the best year to do so, and he would have a state grateful to him were he to champion such a measure.

(Have you seen any other candidates come out against Prop 98? Let us know! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I wrote this for today’s BeyondChron.

With no presidential primary on the statewide ballot, voter turnout in June is expected to be abysmal.  Which means that Proposition 98 – the extreme right-wing measure to abolish rent control, basic tenant protections, environmental regulations and water laws – could actually pass.  But with term limits forcing many state legislators out of office, there will also be a number of competitive June primaries – creating the potential to drive up voter turnout in the state’s more progressive pockets.  If Democratic candidates for Assembly and State Senate make the defeat of Prop 98 a central part of their campaign, they could help it go down in flames.  Candidates who mobilize to defeat it would also benefit – as it will help them connect more strongly with the Democratic voters in their district.

“Prop 98 is a terrible initiative, and I will campaign against it loudly,” said Barbara Sprenger, who is running in the 27th State Assembly District (Santa Cruz and Monterey.)  By re-defining “private use” to include when a public agency takes over natural resources, Prop 98 threatens to undermine any public water project in the state.  “I’ve helped organize my community in opposing higher water rates from private water companies,” said Sprenger.  “Prop 98’s effect would be devastating.”

“I expect to have ‘No on 98’ on all my campaign literature,” said Kriss Worthington, who is running in the 14th State Assembly District.  “It seriously questions our environmental policies, and is a very blatant attack on affordable housing and rent control.”  As a current member of the Berkeley City Council, Worthington sponsored a resolution to have the City oppose it – and organized a press rally in November to draw some media attention.  He also will encourage voters to support Prop 99 – a competing measure that deals with eminent domain – as a “far more reasonable alternative.”

Sprenger and Worthington are both running in competitive races – in heavily Democratic districts where constituents are likely to oppose Prop 98.  But unless voters in these areas turn out, Prop 98 could pass statewide – so the burden is on local candidates to make its defeat a rallying cry.  “Prop 98 is horrible,” said Nancy Skinner – who’s running against Worthington in the 14th A.D. – “and it’s a worse poison pill than the last initiative [i.e., Prop 90] that we defeated.  I will have it in my campaign materials, and I will speak out against it at every opportunity.”  If competing candidates make a point of it when they boost their own campaign, they can ensure a healthy progressive turnout.

In San Francisco – where Mark Leno and Carole Migden are locked in a bitter race for the State Senate – the two candidates jointly appeared at a rally last November to defeat Prop 98.  I had previously written that having Leno and Migden run against each other could help progressive measures pass in San Francisco.  To defeat Prop 98, we’ll need similar efforts elsewhere.

Gina Papan and Richard Holober are running against each other in the 19th Assembly District (San Mateo County.)  Both oppose Prop 98, because it hamstrings the ability of local government to advance solutions.  “I believe that it goes way too far,” said Papan, who currently serves as Mayor of Millbrae.  “I will be working to help defeat it in my campaign.”  Holober’s campaign manager said that the candidate “doesn’t think that the state should dictate and tell localities what to do – and he opposes Prop 98.”

I spent much of last week calling many Democratic candidates throughout the state to see who would go on the record opposing Prop 98 – and whether they plan to make it a big part of their campaign.  Many were vague about how they expect to do so (most are just kicking off their campaign right now), but a few were happy to talk about how their background made it important to defeat Prop 98.

“I’m a renter myself,” said Anna Song, who’s running in a competitive race for the 22nd Assembly District in Santa Clara.  “It’s really important for renters to have a certain level of stability, and Prop 98 would take that away.”  Before running for public office, Song worked for Project Sentinel – a non-profit in the South Bay that assists tenants and low-income homeowners – so has encountered this issue first-hand.

A spokesman for Mariko Yamada – who’s running in the 8th Assembly District in West Sacramento – talked about the candidate’s firm commitment to rent control.  “She’s a social worker by training,” he said, “and is very sensitive to the needs of mobile home park residents in the district.  Gentrification has been pushing a lot of people out, and we’ve been working closely with grassroots organizers on these issues.”

Many of these candidates didn’t even know they were running until February 5th – when the defeat of Prop 93 termed out a lot of state legislators, opening up the chance for Democrats to run in the June primary.  As a result, a lot of them have been late in writing their campaign strategy – and some were even unsure about Prop 98 when I first brought it up.  “I need to get more educated first,” was a common response I got from a lot of them.

But now is the time to put them on record – while they’re still introducing themselves to their district – and ask them to campaign against Prop 98.  Because only with competitive races that generate a high Democratic turnout – and an emphasis on the devastating impacts of Prop 98 – will we ensure that affordable housing, environmental protection, rent control and water rights are protected in California.

And who knows?  Maybe we’ll get a more pro-tenant state legislature when it’s all over.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Before joining BeyondChron, Paul Hogarth lived in Berkeley for many years and worked for City Councilman Kriss Worthington.  He has endorsed Worthington’s run for the State Assembly, and donated $400 to his campaign.  He also supports Mark Leno’s run for the State Senate.

In the aftermath of the failure of Prop 93 on Tuesday, most attention seemed to be focused on the leadership contests in Sacramento. But Prop 93’s failure has sparked a whole series of contests to replace outgoing lawmakers. With the June primary four months away, potential candidates are scrambling to get their names out there in the public eye, raise money, and rally supporters. These contests will help determine the future of the Democratic legislature and progressive politics in the state, and so it’s time we looked at some of these in greater detail.

Here in the Monterey Bay area, in AD-27, we’re faced with the task of replacing the incomparable John Laird, one of the most knowledgeable legislators on the budget and a strong progressive. The Yes on 93 campaign won Santa Cruz and Monterey counties with an effective “Yes on 93 – Keep John Laird” appeal, but it wasn’t enough. Laird’s future is uncertain – like the equally talented Fred Keeley, who represented the district before he was termed out in 2002, Laird does not live in SD-15, the long coastal state senate district currently represented by Republican Abel Maldonado. Most of us here would love Laird to move a few miles east and run in SD-15, one of the most winnable Senate districts in the state (Dems now have a lead in registration), but Laird has not announced his intentions.

Five candidates have declared for the Democratic primary here in AD-27. Emily Reilly is a member of the Santa Cruz City Council and last year served as the city’s mayor. She’s visited Calitics before – in December she wrote an excellent piece attacking the “design-build” concept that Arnold is so much in love with, and I personally support her in the race to replace Laird. She has strong progressive credentials on issues from health care to sustainability and climate change, and has also demonstrated significant fundraising prowess – she raised nearly $120,000 from over 300 small donors in Q4 2007, even before it was known whether she would actually be a candidate for AD-27 (she, like most in the race, promised to withdraw if Prop 93 passed).

Bill Monning is another experienced entrant into the race. Monning is a Monterey attorney, and has challenged for this seat before – in 1994 he was the Democratic nominee, but lost to Bruce McPherson in that year’s Republican tide. Monning, like Reilly, emphasizes his strong progressive credentials, and is especially interested in action on climate change. According to the Monterey Herald Monning has $60,000 in the bank, but plans to raise $480,000 for the primary.

Over the flip I discuss the other announced candidates for the seat…

Barbara Sprenger is an activist from Felton in Santa Cruz County, and like Reilly and Monning has a strong commitment to progressive ideas – her website explains her support of single-payer care, student loan reform, and green jobs. Sprenger also helped organize the town of Felton’s public buyout of a private company that had controlled their water supply. According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel she had already raised $60,000 as of early January.

Stephen Barkalow, a Monterey doctor, emphasizes the need for health care reform (though does not explicitly call for single-payer) as well as action on education, environment, and affordable housing.

Finally there is Doug Deitch, of Aptos in Santa Cruz County. He doesn’t have a website yet his website is here, but he is running as a one-issue candidate – focused on water. Deitch believes that the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency should have its state-delegated powers stripped because, in his eyes, the agency has given too much groundwater to farmers. Interestingly, Deitch was going to run in the primary even if Prop 93 had passed.

Overall it’s a strong field, and each one will be bringing a good set of progressive values to the campaign. Of course, with the state budget issue dominating all else in CA politics, and given that these candidates are vying to replace the legislature’s acknowledged budget genius, they’re going to need to explain to voters how they will help provide long-term revenue solutions to the budget, instead of going for short-term fixes and crippling spending cuts. My advice to the candidates is to take leadership on the budget, and show voters how that squares with the candidate’s other progressive positions.

That’s good advice for any Democrat running in the June primary, and I invite your comments on other races.

It’s primary election day in California.  Don’t let yourself forget to vote, and check our voter guide to help you figure out what those initiatives are about.

Here is a scary thought: People who are just old enough to vote for the first time in this election were ten years old when the 2000 election brought George Bush to the White House, and likely don’t remember much from before that.  

They certainly don’t remember California before Proposition 13 cut taxes, back when we had great roads and schools and colleges.  They don’t remember that there was a debate over whether the people should be allowed to decide how much to tax ourselves.  Instead we now have a requirement that 2/3 of voters approve taxes – a level that can almost never be met.

They don’t remember California before term limits.  Proposition 93 is just a tweaking of the term limits rules, and there is no discussion over the merits of term limits generally.  Young people don’t know that there was a debate over the idea that people should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to return their own representatives to office.

Last week I was caught in traffic so I couldn’t get home in time to watch the Clinton-Obama debate.  I scanned the radio and not one single AM or FM station was carrying it.  (Oddly one station was carrying an older Republican Presidential candidate debate.)  FM was a sea of really bad commercial music, ads, and a few good Spanish music stations.  AM was a sea of right-wing opinion, and ads.  And then more ads.

I remember when it was considered a duty of a broadcaster to inform and serve the public. It was unimaginable that a candidate debate was not available.  In exchange for licenses to use OUR radio spectrum for commercial purposes the broadcast companies agreed to serve the public interest.  They would limit the number of ads and devote a large percentage of programming to documentaries, news and other information that served democracy.  It was understood that WE owned the resource, and WE set the terms for commercialization of that resource.  Imagine!  

Yes, We, the People used to set the terms for licenses to commercialize the public resources.  Now it’s the other way around – the corporations give us credit ratings.

It seems like such an old debate over ideas like these.  But younger people they have never heard these debates and likely don’t even know there even was debate over these ideas.  They don’t know about a time when the people were considered to be the owners of the state’s and country’s resources.  

If they ever did get an opportunity to hear about these debates they might even think it is a good idea for the public to make decisions.  (Hint.)

Click to continue.

The latest Field Poll is out and though the news is not good for Prop 93 supporters or opponents of the gaming compacts, the most important thing may be the number of voters still undecided here on the eve of the election. In the table numbers in Parentheses are early Jan #s and December #s.

And 80% of voters have heard of Prop 93, compared up from 65% earlier in January and from 25% in December.

Interestingly, the recent Field presidential poll also showed a substantial number of voters still undecided. But for 93 to pass and 94-97 to fail, those undecideds will have to break heavily in one direction. And the trendlines are not favorable for 93 supporters and 94-97 opponents.

(Brian’s Disclosure – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Kevin Drum, the progressive blogger extraordinaire at Washington Monthly, yesterday endorsed Proposition 93 in his Political Animal blog. In his brief post he called Prop 93 “one of those rare initiatives I’m in favor of.”

From my point of view, there’s an easy one and a hard one. The easy one is Prop 93, which changes our term limits law. Currently, you’re limited to 14 years: three terms (6 years) in the assembly and two terms (8 years) in the senate. The problem with this is that a limit of three terms in the assembly, for example, means that the Speaker of the Assembly never has more than four years of experience before taking over the top spot. This is dumb. The point of a term limits law should be to prevent people from making careers out of a single political office, not doing away with experience altogether.

The new law is simpler: it limits service to 12 years total, in either house. This is how I would have written the law in the first place, and it’s a good compromise between limiting legislative service while still allowing politicians to gain enough experience to know how to run things. This is one of those rare initiatives I’m in favor of.

In addition, the campaign organized a press conference at the LGBT Center here in San Francisco with (L->R) Mark Leno (who stands to lose 4 years if Prop 93 is passed) and Asms. Ruskin, along with SF Democratic Party Chair Scott Weiner.

Incidentally, the “tough one” for him was 94-97. He seemed to lean towards yes, based primarily on his feeling that the legislature and the governor should get to run the state.

Today I’m headed out to the OC for the Democratic Party of Orange County annual convention, where I’m participating on a panel about Prop. 93 (and debating Tim Steed of the California Young Democrats).  I respect the opinion of those on this site and elsewhere who support Prop. 93.  I can’t join them for the following reasons:

I think that it’s important to look at this in three respects: the short-term, the medium-term, and the long-term.  In the short term, the Governor, who is supporting this proposition, has outright said that he endorsed it because “I don’t want these guys to leave.”  The charitable interpretation of that is that he has a good working relationship with Speaker Nuñez and President Pro Tem Perata and doesn’t want to jeopardize that.  The uncharitable interpretation is that he’s already housebroken these two and he doesn’t want to housebreak anyone else.  I am unfamiliar with the rule whereby the Governor gets to pick the leaders of the opposition party he wants to work with, so that disturbs me.  But also it’s important to look at what this good working relationship has yielded: a $14 billion dollar budget deficit, endless borrowing and passing debt onto children and grandchildren, the worst prison system in America with no leadership on how to address it, a failed health care overhaul with no alternative on the horizon, and so on.  The bargains between the governor and the legislative leaders, and the entrenched power of that relationship is not beneficial for the citizens of the state, either, have not proven to be all that salutary.  So before we extend it, we should think about the value of a less accommodationist leadership stance that rewards the fiscal inanity of the Schwarzenegger era.

Of course, that’s a short-term look, the least important, in my view.  But in the medium term, the rule that keeps current legislators in office does impact the real opportunities Democrats have to make meaningful gains in the legislature.  Term limits are certainly not the only reform necessary in Sacramento, or even the most important.  I think eliminating the absurd stranglehold the minority has on budgets and taxes by reducing the 2/3 requirement on those votes is of paramount necessity.  And the only way we’re going to get that is by actually getting a 2/3 Democratic majority in both chambers.  And it’s a realizable goal, considering the excitement in 2008 with our game-changing Presidential candidate who will bring new voters into the process, whoever it is.  I think we can get 54 Assembly members and 27 Senators by 2010.  But it’d be a hell of a lot easier if we can run Democrats in rapidly bluing areas in open seats, instead of against incumbents like Bonnie Garcia and Shirley Horton and Tom McClintock and Abel Maldonado.  We have a much better chance of winning those seats and getting real budget reform and tax fairness if this proposition does not pass, and those lawmakers get termed out of office.

But we’re told in all of the advertising and literature that we should really focus on the long term.  Never mind the back door for sitting lawmakers, this is about a better and more well-prepared legislature for our future.  Well, I hate to break this to everyone, but that statistically doesn’t add up. Prop. 140, which set current term limits, passed in 1990.  Before that there were no term limits at all.  Yet the average length of legislative experience was 10 years.  That’s actually pretty much what it is today.  And the reason is that California has a lot of structural churn in their legislature, and for good reason.  You may have noticed that politicians are ambitious folks, and in this state there are simply a great deal more desirable political offices than in any other state.  We have the biggest Congressional delegation, we have enormous cities with city and county boards of supervisors that wield tremendous power, and politicians desire those positions.  The idea that suddenly all the ambition is going to be boiled out of lawmakers and we’re going to be able to bolt them into their seats for 12 years is frankly not borne out by historical precedent.  The case of Richard Alarcon is instructive.  He was a state Senator who ran for mayor and lost in 2005, then he ran for Assembly in 2006, and after just getting there he ran for LA City Council in 2007.  The mayor’s office, and LA City Council are very desirable posts, and they drew him out of the legislature.  And that’s not because of restrictive term limits.  I hear a lot of talk about how we are possibly going to lose Sheila Kuehl, my state Senator, from the legislature, and who is going to carry the banner of universal health care, and this is why we need to change term limits.  Sheila Kuehl is leaving whether Prop. 93 passes or not.  She wants to be on the LA County Board of Supervisors because she wants to be closer to home.  Nicole Parra of Bakersfield just announced that she won’t run again despite being eligible if Prop. 93 passes.

Another part of this is the fact that this only extends time in office if you make the decision, at the beginning of your career, to run for either Senate or Assembly, and then stay there.  Right now, 85% of all State Senators have at least 2 terms of Assembly experience and only 2 have none.  That’s simply not likely to change, or else you’re going to have a far MORE inexperienced State Senate than you do right now.

What term limits did accomplish is it got rid of the longtime Willie Brown types, the old hands who steered the legislature in their direction and maintained all the committee chairs through seniority.  I don’t see how giving Senators one extra term, or 3 in the case of the Assembly, is going to fix that.  You’re going to have the same legislative churn as ambitious pols seek better positions of prestige, and none of the benefits of a relaxed term limit structure, which is increasing institutional memory.

Now, personally I don’t think there should be any term limits.  Ultimately, the only limit should be we the people.  But that has to be coupled with an overhaul in our campaign finance system, so that challengers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  I simply think there are better ways to reform the system than with something that fails what I believe should be the short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals of the California Democratic Party.  So I can’t support Proposition 93.

In the last few days, Prop 93 has gotten a bunch of surprising endorsements. In the past few weeks, besides the Governator, Prop 93 was endorsed by such varying personalities as Chris “Darth” Norby and Fred Keeley. You don’t get much different than those two. However, as I’m loath to link to something from the John and Ken Show, I’ll go with former Asm. Keeley:

By making this modification, voters would be re-establishing the balance of powers among and between the three branches of state government. It would also retain the best aspects of term limits, while improving the utility of this tool for problem solving. Of course, for our community it would permit our outstanding Assembly member John Laird to remain in the Assembly for a bit longer. (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1/20/08)

These endorsements are not isolated, as people are gradually able to separate distinct arguments and look at the details of Prop 93. Recently, the Desert Sun endorsed Prop 93 on fairly similar ground

Proposition 93 is needed because:

• The Legislature lacks experience. In our attempt to move away from powerful career politicians, we now have a Legislature where one-third of the members are termed out every two years.

• Voters should recognize that there is a learning curve when new lawmakers join the legislature. Lobbyists spend years in Sacramento. Our representatives come and go so quickly, they hardly have what it takes to stand up to such power.

• We want new, fresh ideas in the legislature, but we also need experienced leaders representing us on complex issues like water, healthcare, global warming, schools and the budget. (Desert Sun 1/20/08)

Proposition 93 strikes the balance the California Legislature needs. The Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act would reduce the number of years members serve in the Legislature from 14 to 12. But all the time can be served in one house or the other, or a combination of the two.

Conservative and progressive editorial boards are echoing a similar statement: Prop 93 is better than the status quo.

 (Brian’s Disclosure)

Today in the LA Times, the Editorial Board endorsed Proposition 93. In the end, it’s not a huge deal. Newspaper endorsements have been gradually declining in importance over the last 20 years or so. That decline was seen starkly in the 2006 Democratic primary, where Steve Westly got 49 of the top 50 newspaper endorsements. (I think that’s the right figure, but I could be wrong on the exact figures.)

Nonetheless, the Times editorial makes the argument that I’ve been (at least attempting) to make on Prop. 93 for a while. It’s not perfect, but it puts California in a better position for the long run. From the Times editorial, over the flip.

Sure, it stinks that Nuñez and Perata would get a special benefit, but voters should not spike the chance at term-limits reform just because a few leaders would get a few years extra in power. That negative consequence would be short-lived. Then it would be gone forever, and we would have a new term-limits structure we could live with forever. The Times has long been skeptical of term limits of any kind, but Proposition 93 provides a positive and creative compromise.

Redistricting, meanwhile, is out of the Legislature’s hands and will be before voters in November, when they can finish the job that the Assembly and Senate couldn’t handle. (LAT 1/21/08)

For my part on the issue of redistricting, well, voters have rejected that over and over again through recent history, the last attempt being Prop 77. I’ve always thought the redistricting argument was something of a bugaboo for newspapers and the like, but doesn’t really have resonance with the voting populace. But, as I said in comment earlier today, redistricting is a different issue. I know why redistricting has become entangled with Prop 93, because the governor tried to do so. However, the two are not, and should not, be related. As we saw with Prop 77 in 2005, redistricting is a tricky process. Few states have actually mastered a good plan. There are reasons why, in this state, where we have majorities in both houses, that we would not readily give up our position so freely to unelected bodies who are only accountable to a single patron, be it a board of judges or a governor or a legislator. It is unilateral disarmament unless all states have a similar reform. Otherwise we will be throwing ourselves to the wolves of Republican majorities in states like Texas who have no compunction to seek reform for reform’s sake.  It is a risky trail that we ought not trod unless we are completely sure that reform will be unanimous.

Fortunately, Common Cause (they endorsed Prop 93 over the weekend) has written their initiative to only govern the reapportionment of the state Legislature. For my part, I haven’t made my mind up about it yet; it is too soon. I assume it will get on the ballot, as it has Arnold’s support. However, I will want to carefully review whether this initiative actually does the state any good. And that will go to the voters to stand or fall on its own merits.

But to the issue of Prop 93 itself, as the Times says, Prop 93 addresses many of the negative points of term limits, such as the degrading institutional memory, and the inability to resolve the largest issues because the negotiating pairs change. It doesn’t address all of the issues, and for other issues, the effects of Prop 93 are unclear. For example, the issue of decreased female representation remains a riddle.

But as for the leaders themselves, as the Times points out, they must still answer to another power: the voters. That term limits deny voters this option is inherently anti-democratic (small d).

Besides, no lawmaker gets more time in office without approval of the voters in his or her home district. That’s democracy, and it should be protected, not limited.