Every Move of California Legislators Motivated by Term Limits Reform? Where's the Proof?

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

I was taught in law school to treat with suspicion and closely examine any sentence that starts off with the phrase, "It is clear that…" and assertions made without evidence. We know from history that big lies are repeated often enough that they are accepted for the truth.

Every time this year that it appears that the legislature has gotten close to a deal on health care or water or actually made progress on some pressing issue Californians care about, there is an eruption of bald faced statements that "They're just doing that because of term limits" from the nattering nabobs of negativism.

As we are getting close to the end of this year, I've asked a dozen or more observers of the Sacramento scene, what would have been different this year had a proposition to change term limits not been placed on the ballot. The folks I've talked to include many who are cynical about the political process--yet none of them have been able to come up with a good answer.

I submit to you that we would have had the same dynamic and the same results had term limits not been on the ballot. The Governor would have had the same insistence on a health plan that's never had a single legislator supporting it or willing to introduce it. He would have the same position on SB 840--the single payer bill the legislature passed in 2006 and would have vetoed it, as he did to AB 8, the health bill that passed this year. He would have the same position on water and we would be at loggerheads over what to do. We would have had the same budget stalemate. The same bills would have passed and the same bills would have floundered.

The chattering started with the introduction of the bill to move the presidential primary from June to February 5. Taken a look at the political calendar for 2008 lately? It would have been pretty lonely having our contest in June. Did all those other states move their primaries because of term limits too? Would we have moved our primary up had the sugar plums of term limit changes not been in the heads of our legislators? Or would we have left it in June when it would have been like a beached whale without meaning? In past elections cycles, California has moved our presidential primary up to an earlier date. Why did we do it then?

Last year--2006--the legislature adopted an on time budget. When there was a move to try to get a budget on time this year, the tongues of some started wagging about the Democrats in the legislature--"They're going to cave to the Republicans and sell us out, just to get a budget because of term limits." We all know what happened.