California Proposition 93, Amendment to Term Limits Initiative (February 2008)

California Proposition 93
Election date February 5, 2008
Topic Term limits
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 93 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on February 5, 2008. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported amending the state's term limits to limit state legislators to a maximum of 12 years in office without regard to what chamber they were serving in.

A "no" vote opposed amending the state's term limits, thereby maintaining that state representatives can serve three terms in the state House and state senators can serve two terms in the State Senate, a total of 14 years.

Election results

California Proposition 93
Result		Votes	Prozentualer Anteil
Yes		3,961,466	46.41%
No		4,574,826	53.59%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 93 would have changed the term limit for state legislators to 12 years no matter the chamber they served in. At the time of the election, term limits for the California State Assembly were three two-year terms and two four-year terms in the California State Senate for a total of 14 years. Proposition 93 sought to allow them to spend only 12 years total in office, but all in one chamber had they so chosen (and been elected).

Under the measure, existing legislators could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house regardless if they had served in another chamber.

Proposition 93 was one of seven ballot measures (along with party presidential primary contests) that California voters decided on February 5, 2008.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 93 was as follows:

"

Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

"

-Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to12 years. -Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. -Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

If Proposition 93 had been approved, it would have amended:

• Section 2 of Article IV.
• Section 7 of Article XX.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

"

This measure would have no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments

”

Support

"Yes on 93" website banner

Yes on 93 led the campaign in support of Proposition 93.

Supporters

• California State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez
• California State Senate President Don Perata
• Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 93 were signed by Betty Jo Toccoli, president of the California Small Business Association; Richard Riordan, former California Education Secretary; and Susan Smartt, executive director of the California League of Conservation Voters:

"

Proposition 93 reforms California’s 17-year-old term limits law to make the Legislature more effective. This thoughtful proposition strikes a reasonable balance between the need to elect new people with fresh ideas, and the need for experienced legislators with the knowledge and expertise to solve the complex problems facing our state. California’s current term limits law allows legislators to serve a total of 14 years: 3 two-year terms in the State Assembly and 2 four-year terms in the State Senate. Proposition 93 reforms the law in two important ways: It reduces the total number of years new legislators can serve from 14 years to 12, and; It allows all 12 years to be served entirely in the State Assembly, State Senate, or a combination of both. These simple but important adjustments will let legislators spend more time working for taxpayers, and less time worrying about which office to run for next. An independent study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that term limits have produced important benefits, but 'have been accompanied by unintended consequences [that] diminish the Legislature’s capacity to perform its basic duties.' The study found term limits increased the potential for 'fiscal irresponsibility' in the Legislature, while providing 'less incentive, experience, and leadership to correct it.' Rapid turnover in the Legislature has also reduced 'expertise in many important policy areas.' Other independent studies have reached similar conclusions. You can read these studies at www.termlimitsreform.com/studies. The PPIC study recommends specifi c changes to our current term limits law to 'improve the Legislature’s ability to perform its role.' These changes form the basis for the reforms in Proposition 93. There is a real need to reform term limits: The Legislature takes twice as long to pass a budget now than before we had term limits. Freshman legislators with little or no state policy experience are now in charge of twelve important committees that decide policy for our schools, housing, jobs, public safety, transportation, and the environment. Proposition 93 isn’t a magic cure for these problems. But it is an important and balanced step in the right direction. It will make our Legislature more effective, more accountable, and better able to solve problems you care about. Allowing legislators to serve 12 years in either the State Assembly or State Senate will let them gain experience and expertise—essential for dealing with complicated public policy issues with long-term consequences. Committees will be led by experienced lawmakers who can better oversee state bureaucrats. And more legislators will focus on California’s long-term needs, instead of their own short-term careers. By serving 12 years in one house, fewer politicians will be plotting their next political move as soon as they get elected—meaning fewer fundraisers, less 'musical chairs' and more on-time budgets. Proposition 93 will improve the Legislature’s ability to solve problems. Read the PPIC study at www.ppic.org. Proposition 93 balances the benefits of term limits with the need for more lawmaking experience. Vote 'yes' on Proposition 93.

”

Opposition

"No on 93" website banner

No on Prop 93 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 93.

Opponents

• California State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner
• Former Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
• California Chamber of Commerce

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 93 were signed by Lew Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee; Julie Vandermost, president of the California Women’s Leadership Association; and Timothy J. Escobar, vice-president of U.S. Term Limits:

"

Proposition 93 is a scam that would actually lengthen politicians’ terms in office. It is intentionally deceptive because it claims to toughen term limits when it would in fact cripple term limits. Proposition 93 is designed to trick voters and sabotage voter-approved term limits. It’s written by career politicians and funded by millions of dollars from special interests with business before the Legislature. Look at the facts and decide for yourself: Proposition 93 has a special loophole that benefits 42 incumbent politicians who are termed out by giving them more time in office. Some politicians will even be able to serve up to 20 years in office—just like before we passed term limits. The initiative lengthens terms for politicians. It doubles Assembly terms from 6 years to 12 years and makes Senate terms 50% longer—increasing them from 8 years to 12 years. Proposition 93 will dramatically increase terms for more than 80% of state legislators. Politicians will have more time to develop cozy relationships with lobbyists. That’s why Proposition 93 is funded by millions of dollars from major special interests with business before the Legislature, including developers, energy companies, gambling interests, large insurance companies, and trial lawyers. In order to uphold the will of the voters and save California’s term limits, vote NO on Proposition 93. Time and again, Californians have voted for reasonable term limits to break the stranglehold that power-hungry career politicians had on our state legislature. The current voter-approved term limits require politicians to give up power and level the playing fi eld so voters have more choices in elections. That is why politicians and their special interest cronies don’t like term limits. And that’s why they are trying to fool us into supporting Proposition 93. This initiative is written by leaders of the state legislature trying to hang on to their power and perks. They know, if it doesn’t pass, they will be termed out of office next year. California’s leading taxpayer groups oppose Proposition 93. They say it’s just another attempt by politicians to deceive the public and evade term limits. Newspapers also criticize the initiative, calling it a 'phony reform.' One newspaper said it 'has a loophole for those already in office.' Another reported the initiative 'would add to the political longevity of California’s state lawmakers.' A third declared it 'looks like legislators are trying to take care of themselves.' California’s current term limits law opened up the system and enabled new people with new ideas to seek office. But Proposition 93 sets back the clock and limits opportunities for more women and minorities to be elected to the Legislature. If Proposition 93 passes, career politicians and special interests win. California’s voters lose. Proposition 93 is a scam to subvert the will of the voters. Don’t let politicians and special interests get away with tricking us. Don’t be fooled by this sneaky effort to sabotage term limits. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 93.

”

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

A poll released in January 2008 by Field Poll showed that support for Proposition 93 had declined from 59% in favor in October 2007 to 39% in favor by mid-January 2008. The same poll showed that two-thirds of likely voters had heard of Proposition 93 by mid-January, while in December 2007, only 25% of likely voters were aware of the measure.

Date of Poll	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
August 2007	59%	30%	11%
October 2007	49%	31%	20%
December 2007	50%	32%	18%
January 2008	39%	39%	22%
February 2008	33%	46%	21%

2008 propositions
February 5
Proposition 91 • Proposition 92
Proposition 93 • Proposition 94
Proposition 95 • Proposition 96
Proposition 97
June 3
Proposition 98 • Proposition 99
November 4
Proposition 1A • Proposition 2
Proposition 5 • Proposition 6
Proposition 7 • Proposition 8
Proposition 9 • Proposition 10
Proposition 11 • Proposition 12
Local measures

Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo theorized that support for the measure weakened because "...the target audience of the (measure's) backers has backed off a bit. They are a little less convinced about the ballot measure."

According to "No on 93" spokesman Kevin Spillane, support for 93 was highest when poll respondents were read the ballot title for the measure, and lowest when they were told that current legislative incumbents were the main advocates of Proposition 93. Spillane also said that the ballot title given to Proposition 93 by California Attorney General Jerry Brown amounted to "a political contribution worth several million dollars."

In February, there was a sharp drop in polls as Republicans oppose the measure 2-1 or 56 percent to 27 percent. The drop of support from the Republicans for the initiative came when it was cast as a partisan scam to keep Democrats in power.

Media editorials

Support

• The Los Angeles Times: "The term-limits measure would reward a few lawmakers now, but it's right for the state's future."
• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "It's a bit better than what we have now — it might bring more long-term focus to the legislature and eliminate some of the musical-chairs mess that's brought us the Mark Leno versus Carole Migden bloodbath."

Opposition

• Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Two of the termed-out politicians chiefly responsible for the fiscal 911 call California made recently in hopes of rescuing its drowning budget want a chance to stay in office six years longer than voters intended."
• San Francisco Chronicle:"[Proposition 93 is]the people in power taking care of themselves."
• The Modesto Bee was against Proposition 93, saying that the "state government is rigidly partisan and increasingly ineffective."
• The Record Net was against Proposition 93, saying it is "just a disingenuous gambit by some of the state's most powerful elected officials to retain control and extend their longevity."
• The Ventura County Star opposed Proposition 93, saying that even though they don't like term limits, "Proposition 93 isn't a bad idea, until voters sniff out how self-serving it really is. Then it smells so bad, even plugging your nose doesn't eliminate the stench."

Background

History of California term limits

Voting on Term Limits
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
State legislative term limits
Gubernatorial term limits
Lieutenant Governors term limits
Secretaries of State term limits
Attorneys General term limits
State executive term limits
Local Local term limits Elections and campaigns Local voting laws

California voters imposed strict term limits on the California Legislature in 1990, when they voted in favor of Proposition 140 by a margin of 52-48%. Proposition 140 limits state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms, and imposes a lifelong ban against seeking the same office once the limits have been reached. Proposition 140 still governs how long members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate can stay in office, although there have been repeated attempts to rollback, soften or have Prop 140 declared unconstitutional.

Bates v. Jones

In the case of Bates v. Jones, Bates--a termed-out Assemblyman--sued in federal court to have the provisions of Proposition 140 declared unconstitutional. A federal court agreed with his claim, before the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against him, keeping the limits in place.

Proposition 45 in 2002

California State Senate president pro tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) vigorously sponsored an effort in 2002 to rollback the provisions of Proposition 140 by putting Proposition 45 on the March 2002 ballot. Voters rejected Proposition 45 by a margin of 42-58%. Had Proposition 45 passed, it would have allowed state legislators to serve for four years beyond the limits allowed by Proposition 140.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

As an initiated constitutional amendment, 694,354 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 93 for the ballot.

The signatures were collected by Kimball Petition Management at a cost of $2,238,537.89.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Term limits on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• Official Voter Information Guide : Proposition 93
• Full text of Proposition 93
• February 5, 2008 ballot proposition election returns
• Proposition 93 in the Smart Voter Guide
• Guide to Proposition 93 from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against 93 from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 93 from Follow The Money
• "Yes on 93" campaign website (archival)
• "Stop Prop 93" (archival)
• "Stop the Politicians," a "No on 93" website (archival)

• A deceptive Proposition 93 Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, January 10, 2008
• Proposition 93 is a toss-up, poll shows (dead link), Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30, 2008
• Proposition 93: Employment insurance for deceptive pols, Daily Bulletin, Feb. 2, 2008