THAT’S DEBATABLE:Should California legislators’ term limits change?

With the state’s presidential primary now set for February 2008, the ballot also is expected to include a measure changing term limits so state legislators could serve up to 12 years in either chamber, rather than a total of six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate. Have term limits been good or bad for California, and do you think they should be changed?

I believe that term limits have been good for California. It forced career politicians like Willie Brown out of office and out of power. This was one of the reasons why I supported term limits when it was on the ballot in 1990. Unfortunately, there have been unintended consequences as a result of term limits. The capitol has become a revolving door for elected officials, whose inexperience has been detrimental to the people of California.

A glaring example of the deficiencies in our current system was seen in December when nearly half of the members sworn into the Assembly were new. As a result, freshman legislators with little or no experience, are influencing the formation of our state’s $100-billion budget, in addition to deciding the fate of major policy issues effecting Californians. A business would never do this in the private sector, why are we permitting it in state government?

Conceptually, I believe reform is necessary given the shortfalls of the existing term limit restrictions. Allowing a legislator to serve up to 12 years in either house is a reasonable and sensible approach that I believe will benefit all Californians. Doing so will deter career politicians and further the will of the voters, all the while promoting the need for effective and knowledgeable citizen-legislators.

Tom Harman

Senator (R-Huntington Beach)

The measure being floated to modify term limits is a thinly veiled attempt by those in power to maintain their coveted positions. Term limits were enacted because power was consolidated in the hands of a few people, to the detriment of the rest of our state.

While proponents will claim their measure “strengthens” term limits by lowering the total time an individual can spend in the Legislature from 14 to 12 years, the reality is that many of our senators will be extending their time to 18 or 20 years. The measure was specifically amended to make an exception for the leadership from the majority to maintain power for another four years.

I don’t think this would be good for California, and it certainly isn’t what the people want.

Van Tran

Assemblyman (R-Costa Mesa)

I voted against the $100-million, early- and extra-presidential primary election because it was being used as an excuse to place a term limits initiative on the ballot at the same time. The initiative will also allow termed-out legislative leaders, such as the Assembly speaker and the president pro tem of the Senate, to serve for an extra six and four years respectively.

The voters narrowly enacted term limits in 1990, cutting the Legislature’s budget by half and eliminating legislative pensions at the same time. Many political observers believe that our current system of term limits, combined with partisan gerrymandering, has increased the power of the special interests while decreasing the power and expertise of the peoples’ representatives in the Legislature. On the whole, term limits have been positive for California, but experience shows that a modest reform may be necessary to restore balance to the process. That said, the proposed initiative for the February 2008 ballot is not that reform.

CHUCK DEVORE

Assemblyman (R-Newport Beach)