Here in California, we’ve seemingly survived another “meltdown” over the state budget. What that means is that we get a temporary reprieve until the next budget cycle where the “crisis” will resume. What’s unique about California is that we repeat this budget dance every year with a new batch of dancers.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 140, a measure that restricted terms of service in the State Assembly to six years and service in the state senate to eight years. The measure was crafted in large part by Republicans seeking to weaken the power of the powerful, charismatic then Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. But the measure also captured the imagination of California voters. The lore of the citizen legislator has been with us since the founding. it harkens back to the story of Cincinattus who was summoned to leave his plow and help Rome defeat the Aequians. Once Rome’s foes had been vanquished, he returned to the plow.
In California, it is fashionable to beat up on the term limits idea. Indeed it has led to less experienced members, weaker committee structures, a “permanent campaign” mode and more lobbying influence, among other things. This led California voters to approve a reform of legislative term limits in 2008 (Proposition 93) that limited members to 12 total years of service in the California legislature.
Despite term limits many problems, I’m concerned that we in California focus so much on rules because we don’t want to address the deeper issue of our state political culture. We can tinker all we want with the rules of the game in Sacramento, but the underlying problem is a belief that “they” in Sacramento are corrupt and that California’s renewal is contingent on throwing this particular set of “bums” out. Californians need to begin “owning” problems rather than passing them off as the result of politicians who are either “in the pocket of lobbyists” or “hate poor people.” My political scientist brethren might argue that partisan conflict is an inevitable and healthy part of a democratic system. But underlying that healthy conflict must be a fundamental sense of efficacy and investment in the system. The perception that the California citizen is somehow detached from the work of government is more corrosive than any term limit or proposition.
The “citizen legislator” as a concept can work if the citizens see themselves as full members of the state rather than as victims of “corrupt politicians.” Now back to my plow.
Comments 5
rkatclu — February 23, 2009
I think things like gerrymandering and [factors contributing to] incumbent reelection rates often lead to anticompetitive elections, which in turn decrease the public's conception of just how much control it exerts (and can exert) over elected representatives.
In addition to being legitimate concerns in their own right, these factors contribute to the "they" problem of citizen accountability.
I'm a little confused by your "prop 93" comment. To me, it reads as if Prop 93 won (I was under the impression it was defeated). Speaking of which, things like Prop 93 can make people jaded. "Term extensions for us, term limits for posterity."
Missy Bain — February 23, 2009
I agree with the statement that Californians really need to start owning up to their problems instead of always trying to pass them off, and I never really looked at term limits from that angle before. I always saw term limits as good because they ensure new faces bringing new ideas and a progressive mindset, and bad because they allow for a weak infrastructure and foster a home for half completed projects/laws/bills never to be heard from again. To me, term limits feel like the lesser of two evils either way you look at it. Without them, we could have a corrupt government full of safe seats on the negative side, or we could have experienced, seasoned politicians who know what they are doing and getting the job done on the positive side. And with term limits we have a constant flow of inexperienced newbies representing our interests on the negative side, and on the positive side we have a fresh face with new ideas changing our perspectives and opening new doors. Just looking at the circumstances in which Prop. 140 was created and passed makes the whole idea seem sketchy to me. It wasn't created with the constituents' best interests in mind, it was a completely selfish, political act. Either way, with or without, there is the possibility for a negative outcome. It is all just one big headache if you ask me.
KAITLYN — February 24, 2009
I agreee with the statement that people of California start owning up to their problems instead of always trying to pass them off. I feel our politicians need to more like Cincinattus, and not be so selfish. I feel that our politicans dont really work for "the people", they put on a show to get elected and then are in office to climb up the political tree. I think term limits do have its problems but then in the end term limits are better. If we didnt have term limits our goverment would probably be more coorupted than it is because there would be nothing threating their job. With term limits the politicans cant mess up and have to do somewhat what the people want otherwise they would loose thier job. I just think this whole state is a mess and just fixing one single little problem is going to get us out of this mess. Our state needs some major help.
Alyssa Milne — February 25, 2009
The idea of having a citizen legislator is perfect in idea but not in reality. Sure, there may have been people like Cincinnatus and Thomas Jefferson who proved that a regular citizen could do great things for his nation or state and then return to his previous, normal lifestyle. However, I think that it has become expected that people who get involved in politics stay in politics. It seems like a normal statement: A person wants to continue doing what they are used to doing and feel that they are good at. They want job security and therefore become a career politician. I'd like to think that most politicians start out with good intentions, that they want to make changes because of a passionate ideology but it seems that they get lost along the way, between the lobbyists, and owing people, and trying to make everyone happy that they get stuck.
Term limits seems like a good idea. There are positive and negative outcomes, but it appears that this is the only way to ensure that people do not become career politicians. There is the downside that there are less experienced people, but I think it was better to extend the limits a little with Proposition 93. There is always the chance that there will be a few people who will be great leaders and should not be forced to leave office if they are doing a good job and the people want them to stay. However, there will probably more often be people who come into office and of whom the constituents get tired and want someone new instead.
Ashlee Williams — February 25, 2009
I feel that with term limits, when Californians are unhappy with their leaders we, collectively, decide 'well, we've only got one more term with them, then we'll get someone of the other party and maybe things will change.' Citizens become disengaged during their wait but without term limits, some politicians stay in office for decades. With the problems our state is in, we need either one new set of people who can solve our problems or a relatively quick turnover of ideas until one works. When the state is in trouble, term limits are necessary in order to remove the representative that is not solving the problem, but when the state is doing well, the conception of term limits should be reevaluated.