Editorial: Corruption of a Good Idea

San Francisco Chronicle
January 15, 2008

Proposition 93 is the Sacramento establishment's version of term-limits reform. It starts, naturally, with the people in power taking care of themselves.

Under current law, legislators are limited to 14 years: six in the Assembly, eight in the Senate.

Proposition 93 would reduce the lifetime limit to 12 years, but allow a legislator to serve it in a single house. The concept is sound - slowing the revolving doors at the Capitol by giving lawmakers more time to master the substance of issues and intricacies of the process. The current 6-year cap in the Assembly is particularly draconian; many members are positioning for a future office from the day they arrive.

But here comes the self-serving fine print: The initiative includes a "transition period" that would allow 34 otherwise termed-out legislators to run for re-election this year - and another eight to do so in 2010. It does that by allowing an incumbent to stay in his or her current house for a full 12 years, regardless of previous service.

For example - and not an incidental one - both Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-L.A., and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, were set to be termed out this year. If Proposition 93 passes, however, each will be eligible to run for re-election in the June primary - allowing Núñez to serve up to six more years in the Assembly and Perata to serve an additional four years in the Senate, giving the Oakland Democrat a total of 16 years in the Legislature.

Núñez, by the way, has been pressing members of his Democratic caucus to contribute $50,000 each to the Yes on 93 campaign. It's certainly a good deal for the special class of incumbents who could get up to six more years in office because of the "transition period."

We have long argued that the term limits passed by voters in 1990 were unduly restrictive. While term limits have opened the Capitol doors to some bright newcomers - and increased the ethnic and gender diversity of the Legislature - they also have forced incumbents to spend far too much time raising money and not enough time delving into long-term problems that don't generate press releases. This measure might be worth considering if it were not so transparently skewed by the people in power to benefit themselves.

Another example of the political establishment's "home cooking" of the measure is the ballot title and summary produced by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office. The title "Limits on legislators' terms in office" is followed by a summary that glosses over the "transition period" that will allow some legislators who were elected after the 1990 term limits took effect to stay in office up to 18 years. Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, would be eligible to serve up to 26 years in the Legislature when his pre-1990 service is included.

Also, the loosening of term limits should have been accompanied by a measure to allow an independent commission - rather than the legislators themselves - to draw the boundaries for Assembly and Senate districts. The two ideas, if paired and written in a fair way, would have advanced the same goal: Giving voters, rather than Sacramento power brokers, more say in who represents them.

Both Núñez and Perata had promised to move a redistricting reform bill to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a leading advocate of the concept. But the redistricting measure stalled at the end of last year's session. Once again, Núñez and Perata delivered only excuses. The two leaders were either insincere or ineffective. Either way, they lost their chance to put together a solid package of reforms to advance democratic values.

The demise of redistricting reform combined with the crafting of a self-serving Proposition 93 demonstrates a certain contempt for the wisdom of the electorate.

On Feb. 5, however, voters get the last word. Vote no on 93.

THE REST: JUST VOTE NO

Here are excerpts of The Chronicle's recommendations on the other state propositions on the Feb. 5 ballot. Links to the full text of each editorial can be found at sfgate.com/endorsements.

91/NO. "The easiest decision for California voters on Feb. 5 will be Proposition 91. Even the original supporters of this initiative have abandoned it. So why is it on the ballot? Simple. It secured the required number of signatures, so it remained on the ballot even though it has been superseded by events." (Dec. 19)

92/NO. "Passage of Proposition 92, which is on the Feb. 5 ballot, would layer dysfunction on top of dysfunction. It would revise the constitutional formula for school funding to assure that as the pool of potential community college students grows - based on age demographics, plus the unemployment rate - the community colleges would be guaranteed more money. The operative word is potential enrollment; thus, the community colleges' funding would not be tied to the number of students they actually serve." (Dec. 17)

94, 95, 96, 97/NO. "These compacts (with four of the state's wealthiest tribes) represent a huge leap from the concept of reasonably scaled and well-controlled casino gambling that was sold to California voters when they approved Proposition 1A in 2000. This election may offer the last chance for California to contain the explosion of gambling. Let there be no doubt: If this passes, many of the tribes with more modest gambling operations will want and expect the same deal. Is this what we want in our state: Pockets of grand glitz that create wakes of despair?" (Jan. 13)