California Term Limits Initiative (2012)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
After California's Secretary of State announced in June that a full check of all signatures submitted to qualify the measure would be required, supporters acknowledged that this would push the measure's validation date -- if it is found to have enough signatures -- past the June 24 deadline for certifying measures for the November 2 ballot. However, if ultimately it is determined that sufficient signatures were in fact submitted, the measure will placed on a 2012 statewide ballot.[1]
On October 8, 2009, Lance H. Olson of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title on an act that he is calling the "California Legislative Term Limits Reform Act of 2010".
The Attorney General's office provided that title, and the measure is cleared for circulation with a circulation deadline of April 22, 2010. On April 22, supporters of the initiative submitted more than 1 million signatures to county election officials, making it very likely that the initiative will qualify for the November 2010 ballot.[2]
Details
If this measure succeeds, it will amend Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution to replace the separate 8 and 6-year term limits on future State Senators and Assemblymembers, respectively, with a 12-year limit on combined service. Current and former Members of the California Legislature would not be affected.
Ballot label details
Ballot title: Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary: Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Applies only to legislators first elected after the measure is passed. Provides that legislators elected before the measure is passed continue to be subject to existing term limits.
Estimated fiscal impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.
Goal, as stated by proponents
| California Constitution |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI VII • VIII • IX • X XA • XB • XI • XII XIII • XIII A • XIII B XIII C • XIII D • XIV XV • XVI • XVIII XIX • XIX A • XIX B XX • XXI • XXII XXXIV • XXXV |
- Reduce the total number of years a politician can serve in the California State Legislature from 14 years to 12 years.
- Permit a legislator to serve these 12 years in either the California State Senate or the California State Assembly.
- Prohibit any current or former legislator from benefitting from the reform.
Supporters
The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce are sponsoring the measure and have named their group "Californians for a Fresh Start."[3]
Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federal of Labor AFL-CIO, is leading the ballot proposition effort. She also led a lobbying campaign to exempt Majestic Realty, a donor to the term limits campaign, from environmental regulations that would otherwise have applied to its proposed stadium in the City of Industry.[4]
Donors
- Majestic Realty, a sports venue developer, gave $300,000 to the group in December 2009. Newspapers reported that Majestic Realty's donation came two months after the California State Legislature exempted a Majestic Realty project from having to follow environmental laws.[4]
- The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor gave $150,000 in January 2010.[5]
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
The campaign to qualify the term limits measure for the ballot hired Kimball Petition Management to collect signatures. KPM received $1,424,087 for its work.[6]
Term limits in California
California voters imposed 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.
Bates v. Jones
In the case of Bates v. Jones, Bates--a termed-out Assemblyman--sued in federal court to have the provisions of Prop. 140 declared unconstitutional. A federal court agreed with his claim, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against him, keeping the limits in place.
Prop 45 in 2002
- Main article: California Proposition 45 (2002)
California State Senate president pro tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) vigorously sponsored an effort in 2002 to rollback the provisions of 1990's Prop. 140 by putting Proposition 45 on the March 2002 ballot. Voters rejected Prop. 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 Prop. 140.
Prop 93 in 2008
- Main article: California Proposition 93 (2008)
Proposition 93, an initiated constitutional amendment supported by Don Perata was defeated 53.6% to 46.4% during the February 5, 2008 statewide primary election. Had it passed, members of the California State Legislature would have been allowed to remain in their current office up to 12 years.
External link
- Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0048, Amdt. #1S)
- List of $5,000 and over donors
References
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Term limits measure unlikely to make November ballot deadline", June 16, 2010
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Ballot measure to alter terms limits turns in 1 million signatures", April 22, 2010
- ↑ Capitol Weekly, "Initiative backers submit paperwork promising a busy 2010 cycle", October 22, 2009
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Los Angeles Times, "After win in Sacramento, L.A. football stadium developer backs easing of term limits", December 30, 2009
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "LA labor federation digging deep to alter term limits", February 5, 2010
- ↑ Details of expenditures
 |
This California-related article is a stub. You can help people learn about California politics by expanding it. |
