LA Times on Prop 93

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

 (Brian's Disclosure)

Today in the LA Times, the Editorial Board endorsed Proposition 93. In the end, it's not a huge deal. Newspaper endorsements have been gradually declining in importance over the last 20 years or so. That decline was seen starkly in the 2006 Democratic primary, where Steve Westly got 49 of the top 50 newspaper endorsements. (I think that's the right figure, but I could be wrong on the exact figures.)

Nonetheless, the Times editorial makes the argument that I've been (at least attempting) to make on Prop. 93 for a while. It's not perfect, but it puts California in a better position for the long run. From the Times editorial, over the flip.

Sure, it stinks that Nu?ez and Perata would get a special benefit, but voters should not spike the chance at term-limits reform just because a few leaders would get a few years extra in power. That negative consequence would be short-lived. Then it would be gone forever, and we would have a new term-limits structure we could live with forever. The Times has long been skeptical of term limits of any kind, but Proposition 93 provides a positive and creative compromise.

Redistricting, meanwhile, is out of the Legislature's hands and will be before voters in November, when they can finish the job that the Assembly and Senate couldn't handle. (LAT 1/21/08)

For my part on the issue of redistricting, well, voters have rejected that over and over again through recent history, the last attempt being Prop 77. I've always thought the redistricting argument was something of a bugaboo for newspapers and the like, but doesn't really have resonance with the voting populace. But, as I said in comment earlier today, redistricting is a different issue. I know why redistricting has become entangled with Prop 93, because the governor tried to do so. However, the two are not, and should not, be related. As we saw with Prop 77 in 2005, redistricting is a tricky process. Few states have actually mastered a good plan. There are reasons why, in this state, where we have majorities in both houses, that we would not readily give up our position so freely to unelected bodies who are only accountable to a single patron, be it a board of judges or a governor or a legislator. It is unilateral disarmament unless all states have a similar reform. Otherwise we will be throwing ourselves to the wolves of Republican majorities in states like Texas who have no compunction to seek reform for reform's sake.  It is a risky trail that we ought not trod unless we are completely sure that reform will be unanimous.

Fortunately, Common Cause (they endorsed Prop 93 over the weekend) has written their initiative to only govern the reapportionment of the state Legislature. For my part, I haven't made my mind up about it yet; it is too soon. I assume it will get on the ballot, as it has Arnold's support. However, I will want to carefully review whether this initiative actually does the state any good. And that will go to the voters to stand or fall on its own merits.

But to the issue of Prop 93 itself, as the Times says, Prop 93 addresses many of the negative points of term limits, such as the degrading institutional memory, and the inability to resolve the largest issues because the negotiating pairs change. It doesn't address all of the issues, and for other issues, the effects of Prop 93 are unclear. For example, the issue of decreased female representation remains a riddle.

But as for the leaders themselves, as the Times points out, they must still answer to another power: the voters. That term limits deny voters this option is inherently anti-democratic (small d).

Besides, no lawmaker gets more time in office without approval of the voters in his or her home district. That's democracy, and it should be protected, not limited.