Difference between revisions of "California Term Limits, Proposition 140 (1990)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Challenged in court)
(Lawsuits)
Line 34: Line 34:
 
* It added [[Article VII, California Constitution#Section 11|Section 11(d) to Article VII]].
 
* It added [[Article VII, California Constitution#Section 11|Section 11(d) to Article VII]].
  
==Lawsuits==
+
==''Bates v. Jones''==
  
 
In the case of [[Bates v. Jones]], former California Assemblyman Tom Bates and several of his constituents filed a lawsuit in the [[judgepedia:United States District Court for the Northern District of California|United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] seeking to have the court determine that the lifetime [[term limits]] in Proposition 140 violated their federal constitutional rights.  
 
In the case of [[Bates v. Jones]], former California Assemblyman Tom Bates and several of his constituents filed a lawsuit in the [[judgepedia:United States District Court for the Northern District of California|United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] seeking to have the court determine that the lifetime [[term limits]] in Proposition 140 violated their federal constitutional rights.  

Revision as of 07:36, 28 February 2012

Voting on
Term Limits
Term limits.jpg
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
California Proposition 140, or the Limits on Terms of Office, Legislators' Retirement, Legislative Operating Costs Amendment, was on the California general election ballot in November 6, 1990 ballot in California. It was an initiated constitutional amendment that was approved.

Proposition 140 limits the number of terms that California state senators and representatives can stay in office. Members of the California State Assembly are limited to three two-year terms and members of the California State Senate to two four-year terms. It also imposes a lifelong ban against seeking the same office once the limits have been reached

Proposition 140 was on the same ballot as Proposition 131, which was supported by Ralph Nader. The two initiatives both had a term limits component and were seen as competing with each other.

See also: State legislatures with term limits

Election results

Although it was outspent by a margin of more than 31-to-1, Proposition 140 passed with 52.17% of the vote.[1],[2]

Proposition 140
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 3,744,447 52.17%
No3,432,66647.83%

Constitutional changes

Proposition 140 added or altered nine different sections in six different articles of the California Constitution:

Bates v. Jones

In the case of Bates v. Jones, former California Assemblyman Tom Bates and several of his constituents filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to have the court determine that the lifetime term limits in Proposition 140 violated their federal constitutional rights.

District Court Judge Claudia Wilken upheld the claim of Bates and enjoined California Secretary of State Bill Jones from enforcing the provisions of Proposition 140.[3] In Wilken's ruling, she agrees with the view of the plaintiffs that the voters were unaware that they were imposing a lifetime ban once the limits had been reached.

The National Tax Limitation Committee and Bill Jones appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge panel heard the appeal. Two of them upheld Wilken's ruling. At that time, a majority of the active judges of the Ninth Circuit vote to rehear the case. When the case was re-heard before the full circuit, Wilken's earlier verdict was overturned and the law went into effect.[4]

Fiscal impact

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

  • The limitation on terms will have no fiscal effect.
  • The restrictions on the legislative retirement benefits would reduce state costs by approximately $750,000 a year.
  • To the extent that future legislators do not participate in the federal Social Security system, there would be unknown future savings to the state.
  • Legislative expenditures in 1991-92 would be reduced by about 38 percent, or $70 million.
  • In subsequent years, the measure would limit growth in these expenditures to the changes in the state's appropriations limit.

See also

External links

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

Additional reading

References