Time to Ease Term Limits, Many Say

SACRAMENTO —  Ten years after California voters revolted against the imperial rule of famed Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and imposed the strictest term limits in the nation, a growing assortment of critics is arguing that the limits have hurt government and should be relaxed.

From the League of Women Voters to the California Chamber of Commerce, an unusually broad spectrum of groups is calling for the change. And two veteran politicians are responding with legislation that would place a measure on the November ballot to prolong lawmakers’ careers.

“I’ve seen the deterioration of the Legislature over the past 10 years,” said state Sen. Don Perata (D-Alameda), author of one of the measures. “Clearly, the Legislature’s role among the three branches of government has diminished.”

Though the limits are widely credited with helping to foster a more energetic and diverse Legislature, they are blamed for a list of problems plaguing the Senate and Assembly, from a lack of courage in tackling complex issues to an escalation of politicians’ competition for campaign contributions.

Privately, a majority of members, Republicans and Democrats, support the proposals by Perata and Assemblyman Lou Papan (D-Millbrae) for a constitutional amendment to lengthen the time lawmakers can serve to 12 years in each house, according to lawmakers on both sides of the debate. The current limits are six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate.

Yet their efforts, which require a two-thirds vote in the Senate and Assembly, face long odds. Term limits remain popular with the public, according to numerous opinion polls. And many lawmakers worry that a vote to tamper with the limits would be used to paint them as scheming career politicians.

The anti-government activists who passed Proposition 140, the 1990 term limits measure, vehemently oppose any efforts to water it down and are already threatening retaliation.

“That is totally self-serving,” said one of Proposition 140’s co-authors, Lew Uhler of the National Tax-Limitation Committee. “We expect them to return quietly to the districts from whence they came.”

National term limit advocates, who consider California’s measure a watershed moment in their cause, have rushed to its defense. They have launched a campaign that includes Spanish-language radio ads promoting one of the law’s perceived consequences: a threefold increase in Latino representation in Sacramento.

“We view this as serious business,” said Paul Jacob of U.S. Term Limits, a national organization known for spending big money and employing hardball tactics against vulnerable lawmakers. “Our message to politicians in Sacramento is, if you pursue this, there will be rough times ahead.”

Sensing Shift in Momentum

Term limits have never been popular with politicians. Efforts to repeal or relax them have become as predictable as the capital’s 100-degree summers, but far more fleeting. Two years ago, the late GOP Sen. Ken Maddy tried to pass an amendment similar to Papan’s and Perata’s, but after it cleared the Senate it fizzled in the Assembly.

This time may be different. Lawmakers and their allies, sensing a shift in momentum, have been conducting an unusual number of opinion polls and focus groups on term limits in recent months, hoping to discover some magic plan to sell softened limits to the public.

One idea that was kicked around involved a measure to impose “universal term limits” on all elected city and school officials in California while lengthening the limits for legislators. Perata, best known as the author of California’s assault weapons ban, said he rejected that as the type of double-dealing measure that would anger voters.

“I don’t know if the Legislature has found the formula that would win public support. And before they even get that far, they need to develop something that can win bipartisan support,” said state Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg. “But I think there is a lot more interest, especially among Republicans, than there was a year ago.”

No one is publicly advocating a complete dismantling of term limits. And many of those who support some change concede that the limits have had some good results--notably bringing more women and minorities to the Capitol. But the negatives, they argue, far outweigh those positives.

“I have no problem going on the record saying term limits need to be modified,” said freshman Assemblyman Herb Wesson (D-Culver City). “With more experience, you get better lawmakers. Now you have individuals such as myself who are chairing policy committees. I can tell you that I know more today than I did yesterday.”

Rather than reduce the obsession with maintaining power, critics say, term limits’ revolving door has heightened it, leading politicians to spend even more time raising money to win new jobs and continue their political lives.

It was only weeks after Bob Hertzberg had risen to Assembly speaker, for example, that a Sacramento Bee columnist was already speculating on who would succeed him. That prompted an aide to Wesson, one of those said to be on the short list, to quip, “You’d better enjoy this, Herb, because you are at the peak of your powers.”

Tired of looking for a new job every few years, knowledgeable staffers have made a beeline out of the capital, leaving many rookie lawmakers with equally inexperienced advisors.

The will to tackle long-running issues has faded among short-timer legislators, who realize they will not be around to reap the fruits of their labors. And institutional memory has all but disappeared, resulting in an endless reinventing of the wheel, critics say.

“The downside of term limits in its current form is that it institutionalized legislative inexperience and empowered lobbyists,” said Jim Knox of the good government group Common Cause, which advocated 12-year limits in 1990.

Papan cannot hide his disgust with what he sees as the sad decline of the Legislature. Papan is so old school that a Los Angeles Times profile of him published 14 years ago carried the headline, “A Throwback to an Earlier Age.”

He used to be known as “Lou the Enforcer,” a bullheaded henchman to Willie Brown who once punched a fellow politician straight into the hospital.

His other nickname was “Leadfoot Lou,” earned because of a penchant for speeding tickets and relentless--some say related--opposition to equipping the California Highway Patrol with radar.

But there is no longer time to become a character in the Legislature. And Papan, now 72 and back in the lower house after a decade-long absence after a losing campaign for state Senate, appears oddly aloof, a fiery old pro in a house of polite political greenhorns.

“I have a very strong belief in this Legislature. I’ve devoted much of my life to it,” Papan said proudly. “And having been away and coming back, I can see the damage done by term limits. You have people chairing committees that don’t even know how to run a meeting.”

The amendments being pursued by Papan and Perata would attempt to address those common complaints by extending lawmakers’ maximum time in office to six two-year terms in the Assembly and three four-year terms in the Senate. Legislators now can serve only three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate.

But despite lawmakers’ private promises of support for an extension, the specter of U.S. Term Limits looms large. Few politicians have forgotten the group’s tactics against former GOP Assemblyman Tom Bordonaro, who refused to sign a voluntary promise to limit his terms in Congress two years ago when running for a Central Coast House seat.

U.S. Term Limits responded angrily by dumping $325,000 into radio and television ads to crush him in his closely contested fight against Democrat Lois Capps, who also refused to sign, but said she would probably not serve more than three terms.

Bordonaro lost by 12,000 votes.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

State Legislative Term Limits

*--*

State Term Limits (in years) Law passed Arizona House: 4 (8 years) 1992 Senate: 4 (8 years) Arkansas House: 3 (6 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) California Assembly: 3 (6 years) 1990 Senate: 2 (8 years) Colorado House: 4 (8 years) 1990 Senate: 2 (8 years) Flordia House: 4 (8 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) Idaho House: 4 (8 years) 1994 Senate: 4 (8 years) Louisiana House: 3 (12 years) 1995 Senate: 3 (12 years) Maine House: 4 (8 years) 1993 Senate: 4 (8 years) Michigan House: 3 (6 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) Missouri House: 4 (8 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) Montana House: 4 (8 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) Nevada Assembly: 6 (12 years) 1994 Senate: 3 (12 years) Ohio House: 4 (8 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) Oklahoma 12-year combined total 1990 for both houses Oregon House: 3 (6 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) South Dakota House: 4 (8 years) 1992 Senate: 2 (8 years) Utah House: 6 (12 years) 1994 Senate: 3 (12 years) Wyoming House: 6 (12 years) 1992 Senate: 3 (12 years)

*--*

*

Source: U.S. Term Limits