Stan Statham: Look at the results: Term limits failed badly
Posted November 20, 2011 at midnightStan Statham is a former California assemblyman, representing the north state from 1976 to 1994.
© 2011 Record Searchlight. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
One of the consequences of term limits and the new citizen redistricting is "quasi-incumbents."
"Quasi-incumbents" are what I call sitting members of the Legislature who had to move into a different hometown simply to stay in the Legislature.
Moving to a different town in one of the new citizen-formed districts keeps these quasi-incumbents in the Assembly or state Senate. That lets them continue to serve the remaining portion of the years that they are allowed because of the term limits. Term limits passed in 1990, allowing a total of six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate.
Now, in addition to being quasi-incumbents, many sitting legislators are now what political groupies would call "partial carpetbaggers" as well. It is a confusing time of musical chairs of districts and of incumbents. And, if that's not confusing enough, let's throw in something new called the top-two primaries. Welcome to California politics!
If you thought it was bad when those already in office decided the length of terms, redistricting and whatever else they could think of, how is it now? With the "professional" politicians gone, how do you like the "amateurs?" Not very good, huh?
Do you think California is dysfunctional?
Without sounding too Occupy Oakland-ish, California's government is the problem! I believe term limits are adding to that problem. After only 21 years, term limits are adding to California's dysfunctional government, even as it gets closer to bankruptcy.
If you disliked what the professional incumbents were doing when 52.7 percent of you voted for term limits in 1990, how do you like what the amateurs are doing today? What were you thinking? Oh, that's right, many citizens wanted to get rid of Speaker Willie Brown. They thought he was too liberal.
I now believe that limiting your representative to a certain length of term doesn't even make common sense. It is anti-voter choice. It is anti-democratic. Why should you not be able to keep your representative as long as you like? I am surprised the courts justified term limits as constitutional for California's elected officials.
And yes, I know that I am just thinking about me. After serving for 18 years in the Legislature, I ran for lieutenant governor because of those term limits. I loved serving in the Assembly. I didn't do anything wrong! I didn't even come close to committing a felony, unless putting about 90 laws on the books was wrong.
As a couple of examples, in 1980 I increased California's drunken driving fines from $70 to $320 with AB 2086 and I provided dozens of millions of dollars in newly harvested food to senior gleaners "free" with AB 2895 in the same year, while I simultaneously tried to limit the number of bills a legislator can introduce. The challenged Legislature killed that bill. It was a great time and I was working hard.
Too bad, though. My time was up. My term limit was fast approaching. I was being forced to get a real job. That's when I decided to Introduce AB 2, to study the possibility of dividing California. I quickly discovered there had been around 160 attempts to divide California since it was born in 1850.
Guess what? Speaker Willie Brown helped me proceed with that idea. He told me he was elected in 1964, and by 1966 he introduced a bill on the possible division of our state. He told me that he also felt California was too big and battling dysfunction.
Again recently, yet another member of our Legislature stopped me on "L" Street next to the Capitol and asked for time to discuss everything that I had done in my attempt, which passed in the Assembly but failed in the Senate.
Do you know what? I think California is again overdue to look at the possibility of starting over with more than one state. Another focus on dividing California would basically result in a refocusing on California's problems. That would be very positive. Such a proposal could inspire us to look again at the use of term limits and everything else. Let's do it!
"Quasi-incumbents" are what I call sitting members of the Legislature who had to move into a different hometown simply to stay in the Legislature.
Moving to a different town in one of the new citizen-formed districts keeps these quasi-incumbents in the Assembly or state Senate. That lets them continue to serve the remaining portion of the years that they are allowed because of the term limits. Term limits passed in 1990, allowing a total of six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate.
Now, in addition to being quasi-incumbents, many sitting legislators are now what political groupies would call "partial carpetbaggers" as well. It is a confusing time of musical chairs of districts and of incumbents. And, if that's not confusing enough, let's throw in something new called the top-two primaries. Welcome to California politics!
If you thought it was bad when those already in office decided the length of terms, redistricting and whatever else they could think of, how is it now? With the "professional" politicians gone, how do you like the "amateurs?" Not very good, huh?
Do you think California is dysfunctional?
Without sounding too Occupy Oakland-ish, California's government is the problem! I believe term limits are adding to that problem. After only 21 years, term limits are adding to California's dysfunctional government, even as it gets closer to bankruptcy.
If you disliked what the professional incumbents were doing when 52.7 percent of you voted for term limits in 1990, how do you like what the amateurs are doing today? What were you thinking? Oh, that's right, many citizens wanted to get rid of Speaker Willie Brown. They thought he was too liberal.
I now believe that limiting your representative to a certain length of term doesn't even make common sense. It is anti-voter choice. It is anti-democratic. Why should you not be able to keep your representative as long as you like? I am surprised the courts justified term limits as constitutional for California's elected officials.
And yes, I know that I am just thinking about me. After serving for 18 years in the Legislature, I ran for lieutenant governor because of those term limits. I loved serving in the Assembly. I didn't do anything wrong! I didn't even come close to committing a felony, unless putting about 90 laws on the books was wrong.
As a couple of examples, in 1980 I increased California's drunken driving fines from $70 to $320 with AB 2086 and I provided dozens of millions of dollars in newly harvested food to senior gleaners "free" with AB 2895 in the same year, while I simultaneously tried to limit the number of bills a legislator can introduce. The challenged Legislature killed that bill. It was a great time and I was working hard.
Too bad, though. My time was up. My term limit was fast approaching. I was being forced to get a real job. That's when I decided to Introduce AB 2, to study the possibility of dividing California. I quickly discovered there had been around 160 attempts to divide California since it was born in 1850.
Guess what? Speaker Willie Brown helped me proceed with that idea. He told me he was elected in 1964, and by 1966 he introduced a bill on the possible division of our state. He told me that he also felt California was too big and battling dysfunction.
Again recently, yet another member of our Legislature stopped me on "L" Street next to the Capitol and asked for time to discuss everything that I had done in my attempt, which passed in the Assembly but failed in the Senate.
Do you know what? I think California is again overdue to look at the possibility of starting over with more than one state. Another focus on dividing California would basically result in a refocusing on California's problems. That would be very positive. Such a proposal could inspire us to look again at the use of term limits and everything else. Let's do it!
No comments:
Post a Comment