Prop 93 Update

Earlier, I posted my recommendation on Prop. 93 as a No. After reviewing the language, and two articles on it, it appears that part of my analysis for opposing Prop. 93 is wrong. I note that it would re-start the clock on legislators, not resulting in any meaningful change for 12 years. It appears that my reading of the legislative analysts report was wrong, and after looking back over the text of the proposition, I can say that I mis-understood the "re-setting of the clock."

Also, I have reviewed two additional pieces on this proposition, both from Republicans on why Prop. 93 should pass. The first is an op-ed written by Gov. Schwarzenegger that appeared in the L.A. Times on January 15, of which there have been numerous articles about. The second is an article written by State Senator Jim Battin that appeared in today's Flash Report.

Let me first address my own review of Prop. 93. The first two points about Prop. 93 remain- I have no problems with reducing the years one can serve from 14 to 12 and allowing those years to be spent in whatever form that person chooses (although, logically, it means 2 terms in the assembly and 2 terms in the senate). My issue remains with the language that, in essence, exempts current legislators that would otherwise be termed out and allows them to remain in office up to 12 years. How my analysis changes is that I originally read that as to mean that legislators re-started at zero, and could then stay for 12 additional years. After further review, my original analysis was wrong, and the text means that in addition to however many years that individual has already served in their current house, they can serve additional terms adding up to 12 years. For example, under the current term limits law, a person in the assembly is limited to 6 years in office (3 terms). If Prop. 93 passes, those legislators would now be allowed to run for 3 more terms (6 years) in the assembly before hitting their 12 years. A term-limited person serving in the senate would be allowed one more term, since their terms last 4 years. All told, a legislator who is termed-out for this cycle could spend a total of 18 years in the legislature, instead of 16 as originally passed by the voters.

Even with that new analysis, I still do not believe that changing the rules and allowing current members who are term limited out to benefit from the rule change is correct.

I will note that I completely agree with the Governor's analysis of the problem with term limits- it's creating less thoughtful legislation, legislators are not allowed to build experience with a topic (much less the legislative process), and, as a result, are often being overwhelmed with lobbyists. This is indeed a problem with term limits, and one that needs to be addressed (I really do not have an opinion on term limits; I understand the need for some turnover, but at the expense of institutional knowledge is a choice that I haven't made yet). I don't really care that the Governor backed away from his pledge to not support term limit reform without redistricting reform; if this term-limit proposal was more fair, I don't think most conservative bloggers/columnists would care either. But the exemption language remains the sticking point. Then to read Sen. Battin's plea to pass Prop. 93 so that term-limited Republican legislators can run again and keep the seat just reinforces my concerns with allowing current term-limited legislators a break.

So, I still say No on 93.