There is a growing populist movement in the term limits arena, and it’s probably not what you think.  Well, if by populist you count PhDs in political science and some local city councils as a populist movement.  But even given the top-down nature of this rebellion, the move to loosen the restrictions on term limits is gaining momentum around the state.  The LA City Council has placed a measure on the ballot to increase the limit on terms from two to three and the OC Board of Supervisors is also considering doing so as well.  And of course, there is the multitude of discussions going on in Sacramento about decreasing restrictions in some sort of trade for redistricting reform.

Term limits just don’t work as they were intended it seems:

Populist fervor led term limits to be imposed across a wide swath of the nation beginning in 1990, in a belief that limiting politicians’ length of service would make them more accountable to voters. But there has been a growing sense among political experts that term limits have wrought unintended consequences: diminished policy expertise, increased special interest power and the constant distraction of looking for the next elected office….Still, term limits remain popular with voters, and political observers say attempts to change them face an uphill battle. (LA Times 7/31/06)

Popular indeed.  A 2004 Field Poll revealed that 75% of the state’s electorate favored term limits in general.  More recent polls suggest a slight, but not major slide in support for term limits. 

However, I’m not sure that you need to totally scrap the concept of term limits. We just need some revisions.  The term limits reform package being floated in the Legislature is one example of this.  It allows legislators to serve longer terms in one house of the Legislature, rather than having to swap houses after 6 or 8 years.  This is a policy recommended by a 2004 PPIC report.

Overall, the effects of term limits on Sacramento’s policymaking process have been profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the governor’s budget, and its own budget process fails to encourage fiscal discipline. Legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. “Legislators are learning more quickly than in the past, but frequent changes in the membership – and especially in the leadership – are taking a toll,” says Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies and Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. (PPIC 11/10/04)

If the framing on these changes is changed from removing term limit restrictions to reforming them in order to gain better leadership, I think a ballot measure wouldn’t be totally ridiculous.  It’s hard to see a real constituency for a No Campaign on such a measure, but a solid Yes campaign would be required to inform the voters of the good government effects of such a revision.

Schwarzenegger has waded into the fray on Sen. Alan Lowenthal’s redistricting bill.

Hoping to resurrect an idea voters rejected in last year’s special election, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to offer lawmakers a deal: He’ll support an easing of term limits if they’ll agree to change the way California draws voting districts.

Schwarzenegger said in an interview Thursday he does not believe term limits have improved Sacramento’s political culture. Allowing legislators to stay in office longer would be worthwhile, he said, if it induced them to put a proposal on the ballot that would strip them of the power to carve political boundaries.

  The governor reasons that lawmakers may not want to change voting districts, most of which favor incumbents, but they dislike term limits even more. One idea already under consideration in the Legislature would double the number of years members could serve in the Assembly — to 12 from six — provided they not run for the Senate when their term is up. Senators’ maximum service could be extended to 12 years from eight.

Schwarzenegger says that he wants to make California elections more competitive, and that a new method of redistricting would help. He is backing a measure by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) that would transfer political map-making powers to a panel of 11 citizens, chosen by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and judges, and take effect after the 2010 census. [(LA Times
7/14/06) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold14jul14,1,4608230.story?coll=la-headlines-california]

The law will have to be passed in two separate initiatives to pass constitutional muster, but I think both are good ideas.  The hopping back and forth of Senators and Assemblymen doesn’t allow them to fully learn the pace of each body.  And redistricting done right could be a good thing for both the Democrats and the State.

Getting people to vote to extend term limits might not be such an easy task though. A redistricting initiative without all the baggage of a mid-decade redraw and Tom Delay will do far better than last year’s ill-fated Prop 77.

Maybe, as long as there’s a bill on term limits, campaign finance, etc.  There is a push, especially in the Senate, to make one giant deal out of several issues: campaign finance, redistricting, initiative reform, and term limits.

On their own, none of the four major proposed electoral reforms moving through the Legislature would seem to have much of a chance. But with separate motivations, Democratic legislative leaders are helping to guide all of the measures through the committees, and they may all be linked together by the time the legislative session is over.

Though still a long shot, it is increasingly likely that efforts to change the state’s election-financing system, the state’s initiative process, the way the state draws legislative and Congressional districts and a possible tweak of the state term-limits law may all be folded into a monster end-of-session package. Though the measures would not literally be linked, there are now talks under way to try to move all four measures as a group. (Capitol Weekly 4/13/106)

More on the flip.

Of course most of these reforms, if not all, would need to get approved by voters, individually.  The discussion of combining term limits with redistricting has been going on for quite a while.  I am a little surprised at the initiative reform getting thrown in there.  However, I think the idea of initiative reform is a great one.  As I understand it, ACA 18 makes it easier for the Legislature to work with proponents of initiatives to address their concerns.  To me, this would be a great idea.  Perhaps it would allow the Legislature to actually participate in the governance of the state.

The campaign financing issue is coming to a head because of the California Nurses Association’s efforts towards getting a public financing initiative on the November ballot.  Lori Hancock (D-Berkeley) has a bill (AB 583) that goes most of the way towards that goal.  I’m not sure how CNA feels about it, but I’m guessing that they might satisfied with that bill.  However, it passed the Assembly with no GOP votes, so it faces a tough road.  Public financing might stand a better chance in the initiative process.  It’s one reason why I’m a little confused why the GOP hasn’t begun working towards dealing a compromise plan.  Perhaps they just love their dirty money. (Perhaps—Hah!)

Now, the combining of the 4 plans might help the less popular programs, like finance and initiative reform.  You would think softening the term limits would be popular with all of the legislators, but you never know.  Maybe Perata wants to trade redistricting for public financing and initiative reform.  Is it a trade the GOP is willing to make? I guess we’ll see in the upcoming months.

I am obsessed with structure.  To me, governmental structure makes the difference between a successful state government and well…not.  California has a lot of issues of structure that bug me.  Supermajority, Prop 13, and term limits, just to name a few. 

Now, I understand the motivation behind term limits. We don’t want people (I guess in California’s case, we’re talking about Willie Brown) to be so entrenched in a position that they become bigger than the institution.  New people bring new ideas.  It allows more people to be involved in their government.  Citizen legislators are more healthy than a leadership clas…yada, yada, yada.  Yes, all these things make excellent sense in theory. 

In practicality, it doesn’t work so well.  You see, those long serving members of the legislature are good for more than just dominating party politics.  They know how the system works.  They enable legislation to happen.  They are the sources of institutional memory.  And it’s not just California.  Other states, are struggling.  Nebraska is set to lose half of its legislature, and it’s not the only state with troubles:

Critics cite the example of Colorado, which in 1990 became one of the first states to adopt term limits. Diane Rees, a lobbyist for the past 30 years in Denver, said term limits there have resulted in a near total loss of institutional memory and an increase in power of staff and bureaucrats.

“Term limits are disastrous and everyone who’s involved in the political process knows it,” she said.(SJ M-N 3/28/06)

See the extended –>

I tend to think that the loss of institutional memory actually causes the increase in power of the staff, but I suppose that’s debatable.  But, it can be clearly shown that the staff cycle through Sacramento.  They are unelected and become as powerful, if not more powerful, than their bosses.  The legislators come and go, but the staff stays.

And who else stays, and knows the system?  Lobbyists.  In fact many of the lobbyists are former legislators.  That comes as no surprise of course.  And so, the lobbyists gain power simply by knowing the system better than the lawmakers.

All of this brings me to the intra-party sniping that goes on due to limits in California.

Before a single vote is cast, four of every 10 California lawmakers are doomed to lose their jobs this year, sparking what are expected to be ferocious intraparty wars to replace them.
“You’ve just got battles all over the place,” said Allan Hoffenblum, publisher of the California Target Book, which handicaps political races.

The massive turnover, caused by term limits and by decisions to seek higher office, comes at a time of dismal legislative approval ratings.

“You’re going to have more hard-fought, competitive races than the state has ever seen,” Hoffenblum said of the June primary election.(Sac Bee 3/31/06)

Personally, I find this constant carousel of politicians a bit dizzying and disconcerting.  While I realize that term limits have their benefits, they are outweighed by the negatives.  I know that the repeal of term limits is not coming in the near future, but it sure would be nice!