Tag Archives: Term limits

Uncategorized

Voters and Term Limits: Confusion Abounds

5 Comments

Kate Folmar starts out her article today with this line:

Californians aren’t quite sure how long legislative term limits are. But they like them. Then again, they’re willing to change them.

The statement is an accurate reading of the PPIC poll Brian wrote about earlier.  Only about 1% of Californians could accurately state the maximum years legislators are allowed to serve (14 years).  PPIC then informed them of the current rules and 61% of likely voters indicated their support for the current limits.  Then they read them the official ballot title and summary, the one that has been subject to some controversy.  53% of likely voters said they would vote for the initiative, including majorities from both Democrats and Republicans.

So what does this mean?

The initiative is in some trouble.  Traditionally support for initiatives only drops over time.  There are plenty of examples of initiatives holding a narrow early lead and then succumbing in the end.  Expect opponents to point to the Pre-school initiative for a recent example.  That is problematic, given the unique controversy that surrounded the initiatives main supporter, Rob Reiner.  It is unlikely that similar controversy will rear its head with the term limits initiative.

The initiative’s campaign strategist was pleased with the results.

The early findings heartened Gale Kaufman, the political consultant spearheading the term limits change. She hopes that prominent Democrats and Republicans will endorse the measure. So far, Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on it.

“With an issue that isn’t a front-burner issue, bipartisan support is incredibly important,” said Kaufman. “Our job will be to provide voters of all parties with supporters that they find credible. That includes the governor; we hope we will have his support.”

Given Arnold’s current popularity and the relatively narrow support for the initiative at this time, Arnold’s opposition could doom the measure.  They still have a decent shot at passage, despite the emergence of the U.S. Term Limits folks, who have done a good job at getting some earned media as of late.  This continues to be a pretty insider game, though an interesting one.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

Impending Cave on the Budget?

4 Comments

I really want to not believe this, no matter what kind of sense it makes.

But despite initial rhetoric, political analysts believe California will avoid a long budget dispute because lawmakers have a one-time incentive this year to negotiate in a timely fashion: job longevity.

Lawmakers want voters to pass an initiative in February to change the state’s term limits law so members may serve up to 12 years in any one house. One proposal would ensure that Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata can remain beyond 2008 even though current law would force them out of office next year.

To build support for the initiative, lawmakers will need to appear productive this year, and the budget is the Capitol’s most symbolic gauge of productivity, said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento.

“All policy initiatives are impacted by the budget, so it has become a single, deceivingly simple symbol of the ability for state government to work,” Hodson said. “Frankly, the political players and the news media have reinforced this notion of the budget being no more complicated than the arithmetic it takes to balance a checkbook. So if the Legislature and governor can’t, the public thinks they’re obviously inept or corrupt.”

The problem is that the leaders in the Legislature would be bashed SO MUCH if they gave in on, say, slashing funding for the poor or the elderly, that they would lose as much support as they would gain.  There’s a fine line between “working together” and “giving the Governor every cruel thing he wants.”  How could  progressive groups be eager to pass a term limits bill for the benefit of those who would sell out our poor or our elderly?  Budgets in California take time, and it’s up to the Legislature to explain why, should there be an impasse.  “Arnold is trying to build a budget on the backs of the poor and our children, etc.”

over…

Still, this is not encouraging:

Perata, D-Oakland, and Núñez, D-Los Angeles, came out swinging last Monday. The two leaders sat quietly in the front row of Schwarzenegger’s presentation at the Secretary of State Building. Núñez then told reporters that “you’ve got the aged, blind, disabled and poor that are having to be the ones to take it in the shorts again.”

Republican leaders held court nearby to complain that Schwarzenegger had failed to reduce spending and that they would be demanding as much as $4 billion in additional cuts. Yet Perata briefly acknowledged that the initial back-and-forth was “part of the Kabuki,” a form of traditional Japanese theater and a term Schwarzenegger has used to describe early negotiations.

“I think these particular players have worked together long enough to know the subtext, and certainly Democrats are going to stand up and fight for those who need government services the most,” said Darry Sragow, a Democratic strategist. “I think it’s a serious criticism of the governor’s budget proposal that should be taken at face value. But having worked together for a while, they all understand there’s a side conversation either going on now or that will go on that will lead to a deal being cut.”

I certainly hope that such a deal doesn’t keep any of those draconian cuts intact.  “Productivity” should not sacrifice principle.  Especially in service to nothing more than an initiative which keeps the major players in power longer.

Uncategorized

Oh Boy – A Lawsuit for the Term Limits Initiative

6 Comments

Robert Salladay reports that a group called U.S. Term Limits is announcing a lawsuit today over the term limits initiative, and particularly Attorney General Brown’s “Title and Summary.”  You’ll recall that the title and summary goes like this:

“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.”

Because the measure would actually extend the amount of time one legislator can spend in the Assembly or Senate, and because the measure would allow current legislators to extend their time in office (particularly the Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tem), U.S. Term Limits considers this a weakening of the law, and wants the wording changed.

Wording like this is always slippery, and whether there’s “right” or “wrong” language is debatable.  I bring this lawsuit up, however, because it was obvious that there would be a coordinated effort to derail this initiative.  Term limits are one of the backbone principles of the conservative movement, and while across the country that movement is breaking down, in this state it still means something, even if it’s marginalized.  I don’t know if U.S. Term Limits will be successful, but to me it’s a sign that there will in fact be vigorous opposition to the initiative.

Uncategorized

Term Limits Initiative Gets A Boost (Maybe)

23 Comments

As Juls mentioned in Quick Hits, Attorney General Jerry Brown wrote the language of the term limits initiative in a way that appears to favor a “yes” vote.  But are people really that easily swayed by whatever it says on the ballot?  Most experts seem to think so, and certainly when the ballot question is put to people in polls differently, it changes the outcome.  But I am not sure that this is so epochal.

The campaign over this term limits extension (which is exactly what it is for people in office right now, while a reduction for later) hasn’t even begun.  And you can bet that there will be ads excoriating the perceived power grab, no matter what the ballot says.  I don’t think that you can hand an election to one side or the other based on language without putting it in the context of a campaign dynamic.  What we know about initiatives in the past couple elections is that the default position is no.  And the “Yes” people now have a really odd argument to make.  They have to say that term limits should be relaxed for the 128 lawmakers serving right now, but tightened for everybody else.  They have to talk about the benefits of more experience and wisdom in the California legislature, while defending a proposition that, according to the ballot, will guarantee LESS experience in that body.  It’s a bit incoherent.  And the opening for opponents of the measure is so wide you can drive a truck through it.

In addition, is the Governor on board yet?  That could be crucial.

Los Angeles Area

Nuñez Drops $4 Million on Sweet AT&T Home Entertainment Center

2 Comments

In preparation for his upcoming appearance on MTV’s Cribs, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has constructed perhaps the most state-of-the-art home entertainment system that anyone has ever seen, using equipment exclusive to AT&T and costing a whopping $4 million dollars – in fact, exactly $4 million dollars, to the penny.  Nuñez reportedly paid with a co-signed check.

“This system’s got it all,” said an ebullient Nuñez while introducing the system to reporters at his downtown LA condo.  “There’s complete wireless Internet throughout the place, unlimited long distance and cellular service through Cingular, an iPhone, IP television through AT&T U-verse (just OK’d by the state Public Utilities Commission), and we even threw a cell tower on the roof so we’d never drop a signal.”  AT&T doesn’t currently make computers or television monitors or what Nuñez described as “kickass” speakers, but they made a special dispensation for the Speaker, creating limited-edition electronics and hiring some of the best engineers from Sony and Toshiba to do it.

over…

Amazingly, the bill for this service came to precisely $4,000,000.00, coincidentally the same cost that the California Democratic Party refunded to Nuñez last fall after the 2006 elections.  AT&T spokesman Donald Ralston denied that this home entertainment system was simply the final piece of some secret deal made between the company, Nuñez and the Party.  “Hey, if I had a spare $4 million lying around, I’d get myself this same deal,” Ralston said.  “You can get Internet in the bathroom.  Did you hear me?  The bathroom!”

The home entertainment center may prove an asset in the upcoming statewide initiative over relaxing term limits for state legislators.  Nuñez plans to offer voters free nights in his “tricked-out” Web-enabled condo, so they can obtain more information on the term limits battle and why state lawmakers need the wisdom of experience to negotiate the difficult straits of Sacramento.  He also is using the AT&T deal itself as a selling point.  “Do you think some rookie lawmaker could get himself this kind of setup?  Did the spokesman tell you that you can get Internet in the BATHROOM???”

Other amenities in the condo include a Web-based kitchen with cooking timers and automated appliances “like the Jetsons,” in Nuñez’ words.  The bathroom reportedly is also Internet-enabled.  A text message from Nuñez’ iPhone can also unlock the front door.

Fellow lawmakers in the Assembly have offered tepid but mildly jealous support, although Minority Leader Mike Villines claimed that the living room blinds with a giant representation of the AT&T logo on them was “a bit much.”

Uncategorized

Term Limits Plan B: Take It To The CA Supreme Court

3 Comments

As juls diaried here, the latest PPIC poll shows support for changing the current term limits law to Nunez’s prefered 12 years in either house or combo thereof plan at just 31%. Juls is rightly skeptical of that number yet it appears that the powers that be are taking it quite seriously indeed. In fact it looks like they’re already plotting plan B: challenging the term limits law in court.

First a little history. In 1990, CA voters, by a margin of 52-48%, passed Prop 140, which limited legislative service in the Assembly to six years (three terms) and Senate to eight years (two terms.) In 1991, the CA Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional.

More…

Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, writing for the majority, said any value in retaining incumbents in office was outweighed by “the state’s strong interest in protecting against an entrenched, dynastic legislative bureaucracy.”

Well, Justice Lucas and others who voted with him in 1991 are no longer on the court, and Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello), who is the senate’s lead man on term limit and redistricting reform, sees an opportunity to challenge the law in the courts anew rather than rely on a finicky public.

Calderon said he has been consulting with lawyers and other legislators and believes Proposition 140…could be challenged by a termed-out legislator.

“I would prefer to do that and let the court decide,” Calderon said, conceding voters are unlikely to overturn the law.

It’s unclear how term limits would fare if they were to make it to the CA Supreme Court. On one hand, there’s traditionally a deference paid to settled law. On the other hand, reversing term limit laws seems to be all the rage.

State supreme courts in four states — Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming — threw out the laws. Two other states — Idaho and Utah — have repealed their term-limit laws.

One question I’d have is whether Calderon sees the CA Supreme Court repealing term limits altogether or mandating some sort of legislative remedy. Because if the choice becomes between passing term limit reform next February or no term limits at all, then term limit supporters may just want to get behind the initiative. If Calderon has his way, the status quo may actually not be viable despite the fact that those voting NO next February will be voting for just that.

Uncategorized

Wording Matters

22 Comments

One of the biggest news out of the PPIC polling are the numbers on term limits.  The voters like them and based on the question asked do not want to see them changed.  The results are in sharp contrast to polling done by the respected Binder Research group.  The differences can be explained by the questions asked.

PPIC (run: 3/20)

Under current term limits, a legislator is allowed to serve six years in the state assembly and eight years in the state senate. Would you favor or oppose a change in term limits that would allow members to serve up to 12 years of total legislative service in either branch?

31% Yes
64% No

DBR (run 1/31):

This initiative would change California’s law regulating term limits for members of the California State Assembly and State Senate. Currently, an individual is allowed by law to serve no more than six years in the State Assembly and no more than eight years in the State Senate – for a total of fourteen years. This initiative would reduce the total number of years a person can serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years and it would also allow legislators to serve all12 years in either the Assembly or the Senate as long as voters re-elect them for each term. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this initiative?

59% Yes
33% No

I don’t have the internals of the DBR to compare the sampling.  The DBR poll is a much more thorough question.  You would have to do the math in your head to notice the reduction of years with the PPIC question.  The results show that any campaign around passing this initiative must succeed at penetrating to voters the 2 year reduction.  Still, voters do like term limits and it will not be easy to get them to tinker with the system even without an well funded opposition.

The botched roll-out has not helped matters any.  Passing initiatives is always more difficult than defeating them.  They have their work cut out for them.  This is not a simple change to explain.  Don’t count out these consultants.  They know what they are doing.

I am curious to hear what you think about the questions.  Did DBR make this too favorable?  Did PPIC not adequately explain the initiative?  What do you think would be a fair question?

California

PPIC Survey: Californians Want Term Limits, Redistricting, Hillary, and Rudy

2 Comments

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has just released its new statewide survey… And boy, is this one a doozie!

– The People Like Arnold a Little Less And Dislike the Leg a Little Less

56% of likely voters approve of Arnold’s performance as Governator. That’s down five points from January, but still OK for him. However, the Legislature is still becoming… Well, less unpopular. While only 39% of likely voters approve of the Legislature’s performance, that’s a big jump from only 23% approval (AND 65% DISAPPROVAL!!) a year ago.

– Sorry, Don Perata… Voters Like Term Limits As They Are…

68% of likely voters think terms limits have been good for California, and 64% “oppose a term limits reform initiative that proponents hope to put on the February 2008 primary ballot.”

The opposition is also widespread: 70% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats and 68% of independents say they oppose the initiative.

– … But They Do Want to Redo Redistricting

Now, we all know that the real strategy to get term limits changed is to tie it to redistricting reform. Well, I guess they’re kinda “halfway there”. Voters want to change the way that districts are drawn…:

– 66% of likely voters think the current redistricting system needs at least minor changes.
– 39% of likely voters think it needs major changes
– 66% of likely voters favor putting an independent citizen commission in change of drawing districts.

– So What Do Voters REALLY Care About?

19% – immigration, illegal immigration
13% – jobs, economy
12% – education, schools
9% – health care, health costs
7% – gasoline prices
6% – crime, gangs, drugs
4% – housing costs
3% – environment, pollution
3% – state budget, deficit, taxes
3% – traffic, transportation, infrastructure
14% – other
7% don’t know

For more on what’s on Californians’ minds, and what this might mean for public policy this year, follow me after the flip for more…

Now 54% of likely voters view immigrants as a benefit to the state because of their hard work and job skills, meanwhile only 39% see immigrants as a burden because they use public services. It looks like most Californians don’t have a problem with immigrants… Except that 53% don’t want undocumented immigrants to have health care benefits.

– Health Care: What Do Californians Want?

Although health care is not a top priority, 71% of Californians are saying that health care is in need of major change. 82% of Democrats, 74% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans all feel that we need major changes in our health care system. 83& of likely voters are concerned about providing health care for all Californians. So what exactly are Californians supporting? What do they want to see done with health care?

65% of likely voters favor a plan “requiring all Californians to have health insurance, with costs shared by employers, health care providers, and individuals”. 69% of likely voters say it is a good idea to require all Californians to have health insurance, with programs available for the poor. 67% of likely voters feel that employers should be required to provide health insurance for their employers or pay a fee to the state to help cover the costs fo health insurance. Now with all these proposals, there’s pretty solid support among Democrats and Independents, but not so much among Republicans.

– 2008 Prez Primary: Dems Want Hillary, GOPers Want Rudy

So who do California Democrats want for President next year?

35% – Hillary Rodham Clinton
24% – Barack Obama
14% – John Edwards
6% – Bill Richardson
8% – someone else (specify)
13% – don’t know

And who do California Republicans want?

33% – Rudy Giuliani
19% – John McCain
14% – Newt Gingrich
7% – Mitt Romney
14% – someone else (specify)
13% – don’t know

For more fun and joy and craziness and pretty numbers, go see the survey for yourself. Come on now, you know you want to! ; )