California Proposition 93 (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

California Proposition 93 (2008)--also known as the Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act--was an initiated constitutional amendment that was defeated 53.6 percent to 46.4 percent during the February 5, 2008 statewide primary election. Had it passed, members of the California State Legislature would have been allowed to remain in their current office up to 12 years. That period was longer than under existing state term limits laws for one legislative house, but two years shorter than the total lawfully allowable time in the Legislature. Currently, California lawmakers can serve 3 terms in the California State Assembly and two terms in the California State Senate for a total of 14 years. Prop. 93 sought to allow them to spend only 12 years total in office, but all in one chamber had they so chosen (and been elected).

Proposition 93 was one of seven ballot measures (along with party presidential primary contests) that California voters decided February 5. (See California 2008 ballot measures.)

U.S. Term Limits opposed Prop. 93 because it lengthened the time current legislative incumbents could serve. Current legislative incumbents were the primary sponsors of Prop. 93.

History of legislative term limits in California

California voters imposed strict term limits on the California Legislature in 1990, when they voted in favor of Proposition 140 by a margin of 52-48%. Proposition 140 limits state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms, and imposes a lifelong ban against seeking the same office once the limits have been reached. Proposition 140 still governs how long members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate can stay in office, although there have been repeated attempts to rollback, soften or have Prop 140 declared unconstitutional.

Bates v. Jones

In the case of Bates v. Jones, Bates--a termed-out Assemblyman--sued in federal court to have the provisions of Prop. 140 declared unconstitutional. A federal court agreed with his claim, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against him, keeping the limits in place.

Proposition 45 in 2002

California State Senate president pro tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) vigorously sponsored an effort in 2002 to rollback the provisions of 1990's Prop. 140 by putting Proposition 45 on the March 2002 ballot. Voters rejected Prop. 45 by a margin of 42-58%. Had Proposition 45 passed, it would have allowed state legislators to serve for four years beyond the limits allowed by Prop. 140.

What Proposition 93 would do

As matters stand currently, a member of the California state assembly can serve three two-year terms (six years) and then run for California state senate, where he or she can serve up to two four-year terms (eight years), for a maximum total of fourteen (14) years in the California State Legislature.

Proposition 93 would reduce the overall total amount of time a person could serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. At the same time, Proposition 93 would extend the amount of time that a politician could serve in either the assembly or the senate to twelve years in either chamber.

Proposition 93 provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.

As a practical matter, if Proposition 93 passes, current members of the California State Assembly would be able to stay in office six years longer than they are allowed by current term limits, and current members of the California State Senate would be able to stay in office four years longer than they can under the current rules.

Proponents

California State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and California State Senate President Don Perata were two key political backers of the measure. With Proposition 93's defeat, both now have to leave office.[1][2][3]

Gov. Schwarzenegger endorsed Proposition 93, saying voters went "too far" with term limits in the past.[1] He also argued that if the redistricting initiative passes and new limits were placed on political funding, the term limits extension wouldn't be necessary.[2]

Funding

As of January 18, 2008, supporters of Proposition 93 had raised approximately $11.7 million.[3]

Nunez reportedly asked all 47 members of his caucus to give $50,000, but only seven have taken him up on his offer and only two of them gave the full amount. These two were Ted Lieu D-Torrance, and Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles. On the state Senate side, Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) has donated $150,000.[4]

A proponent of the initiative, Yes on 93, has raised more than $4.4 million for the campaign. Key contributors to Yes on 93 include the California Teachers Association which has donated $750,000 and the AFSCME, which has donated $500,000. Other donations come from numerous labor unions and business interests.[5],[6]

The San Diego Union-Tribune editorialized on December 24, 2007 that Gov. Schwarzenegger and Fabian Nuñez rounded up union support for a health care bill in the state by giving unions "huge, unscrutinized concessions" in exchange for donations from SEIU and AFSCME to the pro-Prop 93 camp totalling $1.7 million.[7]

See: Large donors supporting California Proposition 93.

Opposition to Proposition 93

California State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner announced in early November 2007 that he will lead the charge against Prop. 93. Poizner is also serving as the chief spokesman against the measure. His family foundation, as of January 25, 2008, had contributed $2.5 million to Alliance for California's Renewal, the official campaign committee opposing Prop. 93.[8],[9]

The opposition for the campaign has been outspent 2-1 with the "No on 93" campaign raising $8.7 million while the "Support Prop 93" campaign spending $16 million.[10]

The California Republican Party has spent $227,000 to oppose the initiative as well. At least 26 GOP legislators have publicly opposed the initiative including former Gov. Pete Wilson.[11]

Poizner said that Proposition 93 is a "naked power grab" by legislative incumbents.

U.S. Term Limits announced that it is also donating $1.5 million to the Alliance for California's Renewal.[12]

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association co-wrote ballot arguments against Proposition 93 with Poizner.[13] The powerful California Chamber of Commerce voted in mid-December to oppose Prop. 93.[14]

See: Large donors opposing California Proposition 93

Trojan Horse

Term limits Trojan Horse

The opponents built a Trojan Horse and are touring the state with it to urge voters to vote against Proposition 93.

In a political statement, three legislatures appeared with the Trojan Horse in front of the Chico municipal building. "Don't be fooled," said LaMalfa protesting Prop 93. [15]

Campaign tactics

Recently the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and the California League of Conservation Voters sent a letter to No on 93 demanding that the donors from the U.S. Term Limits donation be revealed, saying that Howie Rich is behind the initiative. According to an article in Capital Weekly the "focus on Rich marks a tactical change in the fight over Proposition 93. Proponents are hoping that voters will support the measure when they learn who the initiative’s opponents are."[16]

This change from the focus on the issue to who is funding the "No" campaign has been attributed to the lackluster support of the California Democratic Party with nearly half of the E-board voting to stay neutral on the topic.

At the same time, opponents of Prop. 93 have focused on recent scandals about the two main sponsors of Prop. 93: California House speaker Fabian Nunez[17],[18] and state Senate president Don Perata.[19]

It has also been alleged that the California primary was moved to February in order to allow Nunez to stay in office.[20]

Public opinion on Prop 93

A poll released in January 2008 by Field Poll showed that support for Prop. 93 has declined from 59 percent in favor in October 2007 to 39 percent in favor by mid-January 2008. The same poll shows that 2/3 of likely votes had heard of Proposition 93 by mid-January, while in December 2007, only 25% of likely voters were aware of the measure.[21]

Month of Poll In Favor Opposed Undecided
August 2007 59 percent 30 percent 11 percent
October 2007 49 percent 31 percent 20 percent
December 2007 50 percent 32 percent 18 percent
January 2008 39 percent 39 percent 22 percent
February 2008[22] 33 percent 46 percent 21 percent

Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo theorized that support for the measure has weakened because "...the target audience of the (measure's) backers has backed off a bit. They are a little less convinced about the ballot measure."[23]

As of January 16, 2008 approval of the measure is at 50 percent, according to a field poll. This is very low for the end of campaign.[24] According to "No on 93" spokesman Kevin Spillane, support for 93 is highest when they are read the ballot title for the measure, and lowest when they hear that current legislative incumbents are pushing for 93.Spillane also said that the ballot title given to Prop. 93 by California Attorney General Jerry Brown amounted to "a political contribution worth several million dollars."[25]

In February there was a sharp drop in polls as Republican's oppose the measure 2-1 or 56 percent to 27 percent. The drop of support from the Republicans for the initiative came when it was cast as a partisan scam to keep Democrats in power.[26]

Newspaper editorial boards start to weigh in

Newspapers opposing Prop. 93

The Long Beach Press-Telegram is urging its readers to vote "no" on Prop. 93, saying, "Two of the termed-out politicians chiefly responsible for the fiscal 911 call California made recently in hopes of rescuing its drowning budget want a chance to stay in office six years longer than voters intended."[27] The San Jose Mercury News also is opposed to Prop. 93.[28] The Sacramento Bee is also urging its readers to reject Proposition 93.[29]

The Tracy Press urges a "no" vote on Prop. 93, calling it "an ugly attempt at term limits 'reform'"[30] The San Francisco Chronicle urges a "no" vote on Prop. 93, saying it is "the people in power taking care of themselves".[31] The Record Searchlight in Redding, California is also opposed to Proposition 93, saying that it "a self-serving scheme" by legislative incumbents.[32]

The North Country Times, while saying that it generally opposes term limits, says that Prop. 93 is not the reform they believe is needed, and urges their readers to reject it.[33] The Los Angeles Daily News opines that Gov. Schwarzenegger's change-of-heart on Prop. 93 is illogical, "feeble", and a "a blatant case of flip-flopping and dishonesty on the governor's part."[34]

The Modesto Bee is against Prop. 93, saying that the "state government is rigidly partisan and increasingly ineffective."[35] The California Record Net is also against Prop. 93, saying it is "just a disingenuous gambit by some of the state's most powerful elected officials to retain control and extend their longevity."[36] The Ventura County Star is opposed to Prop. 93, saying that even though they don't like term limits, "Proposition 93 isn't a bad idea, until voters sniff out how self-serving it really is. Then it smells so bad, even plugging your nose doesn't eliminate the stench."[37]

Newspapers supporting Prop. 93

The Pasadena Star News supports Proposition 93 and urges a "yes" vote on it.[38] The Los Angeles Times encourages its readers to endorse Proposition 93, saying, "The term-limits measure would reward a few lawmakers now, but it's right for the state's future."[39]

The San Francisco Bay Guardian supports Proposition 93, arguing that term limits have only made the governor more powerful and filled the legislature with inexperienced politicians, while lobbyists continue to gain experience and influence because they have no term limits. The SFBG suggests that it makes more sense to allow legislators to spend 12 years in one house (assembly or senate), then to have people shifting around constantly from house to senate so they can stay in politics for the current allowable 14 years (six in the assembly and eight in the senate), which often results in otherwise amical and popular politicians getting in election battles with each other. "It's a bit better than what we have now — it might bring more long-term focus to the legislature and eliminate some of the musical-chairs mess that's brought us the Mark Leno versus Carole Migden bloodbath."[40]

The Monterey County Herald urges a "yes" vote on Prop. 93, arguing that "suddenly removing dozens of veteran legislators will do nothing at all to solve the many large and complicated issues on the legislative agenda".[41]

See also

External links

Additional reading

References

  1. ↑ Governor supports term limits measure in The Sacramento Bee, Jan. 15, 2008
  2. ↑ Reform term limits in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 15, 2008
  3. ↑ Prison guards give another $1 million to oppose Prop. 93 Jan 18, 2008 San Francisco Chronicle
  4. ↑ Campaign group demands answers from Poizner, Capital Weekly, Nov. 29, 2007
  5. ↑ ID of Prop. 93 foes sought, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 29, 2007
  6. ↑ Campaign finance reports for "Yes on 93"
  7. ↑ Desperation time: Governor will do anything to enact health bill
  8. ↑ Steve Poizner takes on phony term-limit initiative
  9. ↑ With Poizner's Checkbook, the term limits battle is joined
  10. ↑ Support for Proposition 93 dives, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 4, 2008
  11. ↑ Term limits initiative has created a partisan divide, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 3, 2008
  12. ↑ Poizner pledges $1.5 million to block term-limits measure, LA Times, Nov. 7th, 2007
  13. ↑ Poizner will lead foes of changes in term limits
  14. ↑ Cal Chamber: No on Prop 93
  15. ↑ Trojan horse' battles Proposition 93, Chico-Enterprise Record, Jan. 17, 2008
  16. ↑ Campaign group demands answers from Poizner, Capital Weekly, Nov. 29, 2007
  17. ↑ Nuñez used a charity to funnel donations
  18. ↑ "Lavishgate" - the Fabian Nunez Scandal
  19. ↑ Probe of Perata quiet but very much alive
  20. ↑ More special-interest stink
  21. ↑ Field Poll January 24, 2008
  22. ↑ Support for Proposition 93 dives, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 4, 2008
  23. ↑ Voters less enthusiastic about changing term limits, SFGate, Oct 31, 2007
  24. ↑ Governor flip-flops on term-limits measure, now backs Prop. 93, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 16, 2008
  25. ↑ Inside the term limits chess match Capitol Weekly, January 17, 2008
  26. ↑ Support for Proposition 93 dives, San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 4, 2008
  27. ↑ No on Proposition 93 Press-Telegram, Long Beach, California, January 3, 2008
  28. ↑ Prop. 93 isn't the fix we need; Term-limit law would reward double-dealing by incumbents San Jose Mercury News editorial, December 2, 2007
  29. ↑ Voters should reject Proposition 93 Measure isn't what it pretends to be -- a reform of term limits. Fresno Bee editorial board, December 2, 2007
  30. ↑ The Press recommends a no vote on Proposition 93, an ugly attempt at term limits "reform." Tracy Press, January 10, 2008
  31. ↑ Corruption of a good idea San Francisco Chronicle, January 15, 2008
  32. ↑ Proposition 93 primarily helps the incumbents Redding Record Searchlight, January 19, 2008
  33. ↑ We endorse... North Country Times, January 19, 2008
  34. ↑ Schwarzenegger flip-flops on Prop. 93 Los Angeles Daily News, January 15, 2008
  35. ↑ No on 93 -- unless you think the Legislature's doing well Modesto Bee, January 13, 2008
  36. ↑ Proposition 93: Term limits shift too shifty January 28, 2008
  37. ↑ Prop. 93: No; Self-serving aspect reeks Ventura County Star, January 27, 2008
  38. ↑ Keep leaders in office Pasadena Star News, January 17, 2008
  39. ↑ Yes on Proposition 93 January 21, 2008, Los Angeles Times
  40. ↑ Proposition 93 (term limits) Yes San Francisco Bay Guardian
  41. ↑ Yes on Proposition 93 Monterey County Herald, January 27, 2008
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_93_%282008%29"
Personal tools