There is one guiding tenet California has adopted though that may be worth replicating at the national level– term limits for legislators.
California is one of fifteen states to mandate maximum term limits for state-level Senators and Assemblymen. With the approval of a 1990 ballot measure, voters in California limited state legislators to serving a maximum of two four-year terms in the Assembly and three two-year terms in the Senate, for a total of 14 years in the legislature.
On June 5, Californians will determine if those limitations will be amended when they cast their votes on Proposition 28, a ballot measure that would limit legislative careers to a total of 12 years, but that would allow politicians to spend their entire time in either, or both, of the state houses.
Seemingly legitimate arguments have been made both for and against Proposition 28.
Supporters of Prop 28 include groups like California’s League of Women Voters and California Common Cause, a nonpartisan citizens' lobby organization. Proponents of the measure arguethat the current system, which requires more experienced lawmakers to change legislative houses in order to continue their careers, forces politicians to spend too much time running for office, limiting their ability to focus on providing quality governance.
Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, also notes that the high rate of turnover among legislators caused by the current term limits system leaves a perpetual crop of rookie lawmakers vulnerable to the superior experience and tactics of powerful corporate and industrial lobbyists.
Opponents of Proposition 28, citizens like Anita Anderson of the group Californians for Term Limits, assert that the new rules are “deceptive and misleading” and are nothing more than “a sneaky way of increasing the terms.”
To the degree that Prop 28 simplifies the re-election process for politicians who would no longer have to switch legislative bodies and districts in mid-career, this claim may hold true.
