[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Hannah Beth Jackson

The February 5th California primary is upon us. Our top rated progressive one stop voter guide for this election focuses on the ballot initiatives and includes links to the independent and highly regarded California Legislative Analyst's Office's analysis of each proposition.

The seven measures that actually made it on the ballot are primarily about money, and how it should be allocated. The one measure dealing with state governance is the so-called Term Limits initiative. While each of these is important to a particular interest group, none of them really incorporate progressive values nor do they serve to advance or impede the progressive agenda. For that reason, Speak Out California has not taken a position on any of them, but we have tried to distill each measure down to its basic parts so you can decide how you wish to vote on each of them.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Peter L. Stahl
Pete Rates the Propositions

“Throw the rascals out!” That was the rallying cry for Prop 140, the 1990 term limits initiative. Aimed at entrenched career politicians and the special interests supposedly keeping them in office, Prop 140 passed in a landslide of indignation. State legislators are now limited to eight years in the Assembly and six in the Senate.

Yes, Einstein, that adds up to fourteen years, but not many serve that long. The Senate is only half the size of the Assembly, and Senate vacancies occur less frequently, so most Assembly members are squeezed out of Sacramento after just six years, never reaching the Senate.

In the first dozen years after Prop 140 passed there was a fair amount of chamber switching in both directions, as termed-out Assembly members and Senators grabbed each others’ seats. So in the early days of term limits, a fair portion of the Assembly had prior legislative experience in the State Senate. But no longer. Only four current members of the Assembly have ever served in the Senate. The other seventy-five (there’s one vacancy) have been in Sacramento five years or less. In other words, the Assembly is filled with inexperience.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Former Controller and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly may be lending his support to the Yes on 93 Term Limits Reform campaign. According to the Timm Herdt of the Ventura County Star's "95 Percent Accurate" political blog:

"an announcement could be coming soon of his support for the term-limits initiative on the Feb. 5 ballot. The campaign, he said, is putting together a coalition of supporters who do not currently hold elected office. Westly said he was around Sacramento long enough during his one term as controller to understand the importance of having legislators with some experience."

The move is somewhat of a surprise. The chief proponent of the measure, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, supported Westly rival Phil Angelides in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Nunez also is on the opposite of him again in the presidential race (Nunez is a top cheerleader for Sen. Hillary Clinton while Westly is a leader in Sen. Barack Obama's California campaign).

There's more...

Image courtesy California Progress Report.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

The press corps in California deserves condemnation for the manner in which they are covering the effort to change term limits by initiative.

The initiative would allow individuals to seek election and reelection to the same branch of the legislature for a period of 12 years. Currently they may seek election and reelection to different branches of the legislature for a total of 14 years. So the initiative limits the current lifetime ban on reelection to two fewer years.

That means the issue for voters is whether a trade of 12 possible years in one house of the legislature versus 14 years in two Houses (current law) is a good trade – and why?

No news story or editorial has focused on this fact.

The title and summary of the ballot measure adopted by Attorney General Brown makes it clear that this is the issue.

But the press corps reported only the allegations that the title and summary was drawn up with partisan concern. Or to favor specific individuals. That continued to be the story even after the Republican Supreme Court threw out those allegations.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Meeting in Anaheim this weekend, California Democratic Party Executive Board Members endorsed Prop 93 (the term limits reform initiative) and crushed a resolution to censure U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. The E-board also voted to take a neutral stance on the referendum to overturn the four gaming compacts signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger and ratified by the legislature.

The term limits initiative passed after some debate. A coalition of progressives who don't like term limits at all combined with others who believe that the initiative would reduce the chances of Democrats picking up more legislative seats. Ultimately, the party endorsed the resolution after CDP Chairman Art Torres and other party faithful hammered home that the initiative would make the legislature more effective.

Censuring Dianne Feinstein -- which was backed by moveon.org, the Courage Campaign, and other progressives -- failed.

Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign told the AP:  "We will be watching to make sure she votes in ways that make sense. And if not, we'll be back," he said.

The battle over the compacts was the most expensive one. The gaming tribes phone banked e-board members, did mailings, and even sent each E-board member a DVD. Labor was split on the issue, and the neutral position ultimately prevailed.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

The Greenlining Institute – a group very dedicated public policy advocates who are the voice for lots of folks who don’t have voices – sent this open letter to State Insurance Commissioner and 2010 Governor-Wannabe Steve Poizner today:

Dear Steve,

Given your supportive positions on other issues benefiting low-income and minority communities, we are surprised and disappointed in your decision to finance the opposition to the term limits initiative.

It appears you may not have had input from the low-income and minority communities that make up our constituency.

We are supporting the term limits initiative for several reasons. First, it will expand opportunities for our communities to have a voice in policymaking. Second, it will allow our communities to better compete with special interest groups by creating a level playing field for us in the legislative arena. Third, it will enable our community’s elected champions to develop additional expertise in one house of the legislature.

read more »

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Tim Herdt, of the Ventura County Star, brings up a very good point about the Term limits initiative, Prop 93. Put simply, why are termed-out legislators still termed out if they've only served 6 years? So, here's the example of the Stricklands:

How unequal would Proposition 93 be? Well, it would, for example, apply differently to two members of the same Moorpark household. Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, elected in 2004, would be permitted to serve 12 years. But her husband, Tony, who preceded her in office and served six years, would never be eligible to run again. The silliness of such an arrangement brings to mind what former Sen. David Roberti, the first person termed out under the existing law, used to say about term limits: "There are two classes of people prohibited by law from running for the state Senate: convicted felons and David Roberti."  (Ventura Star 10/31/07)

read more »