PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





Proposition 164, Term Limits on California's U.S. Congressional Delegation (1992)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 08:28, 1 January 2014 by Polycal (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 164 was on the November 3, 1992 general election ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved. Proposition 164 imposed term limits on California's U.S. congressional delegation.

In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, a five-judge majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are not allowed to limit the terms of their federal congressional delegations, thus nullifying Proposition 164.

Proposition 164 was one of 13 ballot measures on the November 1992 California ballot. Of those on the ballot, it is one of five that passed.

Election results

Proposition 164
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 6,578,637 63.57%
No3,769,51136.43%

Details

Proposition 164, had it not been judicially nullified, would have limited the number of terms that senators and representatives from California may serve in Congress. Under Prop 164, a person's name could not be placed on the ballot as a candidate for another term who had served:

  • 12 or more of the previous 17 years as a senator from California.
  • 6 or more of the previous 11 years as a representative from California.

Proposition 164 would not have limited the number of terms a person could serve over a lifetime, but would have limited the number of terms that a person could serve within a period of years.

Congressional service before 1993 did not count toward the limits.

The implementation mechanism was prohibiting California election officials from placing names of candidates on the ballot who had met the term limits specified in the measure.

Proposition 164 would not have restricted candidates from campaigning for Congress as "write-in" candidates.

Ballot summary

Proposition 164 November 1992.PNG

Fiscal estimate

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

  • This measure would have no direct fiscal impact on state or local governments.
  • However, to the extent that the measure results in more write-in candidates, counties would have additional elections-related costs for counting write-in votes. These costs probably would not be significant on a statewide basis.

See also

External links