California Proposition 27, Congressional Candidate Voluntary Term Limit Declarations Initiative (March 2000)
| California Proposition 27 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date March 7, 2000 | |
| Topic Term limits | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 27 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on March 7, 2000. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported allowing all California candidates for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to sign a non-binding declaration stating their intention to voluntarily limit their years of service to two terms in the Senate (12 years) or three terms in the House of Representatives (6 years). |
A "no" vote opposed allowing California candidates for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to sign a non-binding declaration stating their intention to voluntarily limit their years of service. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 27 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,737,274 | 40.43% | ||
|
|
4,032,355 | 59.57% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 27 would have allowed all California candidates for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to sign a non-binding declaration stating their intention to voluntarily limit their years of service to two terms in the Senate (12 years) or three terms in the House of Representatives (6 years). Proposition 27 would have allowed the California Secretary of State (if authorized by the candidate) to place a statement on ballots and voter education materials that the candidate signed the declaration to voluntarily limit his or her terms of service.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 27 was as follows:
| “ | Elections. Term Limit Declarations for Congressional Candidates. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Permits congressional candidates to voluntarily sign non-binding declaration of intention to serve no more than three terms in House of Representatives or two terms in the United States Senate. • Requires placement of information on ballots and state-sponsored voter education materials when authorized by candidates. • Candidates may appear on official ballot without submitting declaration. • Declaration by winning candidate applies to future elections for same office. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 27. That estimate was:
- Unknown, but probably not significant, election costs to the state and counties.
Support
Supporters
- George E. Martine, community activist[1]
- Juan Carlos Rod, community activist[1]
- Sarah Reed Impastato of the California Term Limit Committe[1]
- Lewis K. Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee[1]
- Lisa Powers, Northern California Co-Chair of the California Term Limit Committee[1]
- Dwight Filley, Southern California Co-Chair of the California Term Limit Committee[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 27:[1]
| “ |
Vote YES on Proposition 27. Term Limits. Term limits on our state legislature are a great success—bringing new people and new ideas to Sacramento. Gone are much of the partisan bickering and backroom deals. Legislators spend their time getting things done for the people, instead of picking fights to score political points. A YES vote on Proposition 27 will help us bring new people and new ideas to Congress. When those who represent us serve for short periods of time, they stay connected to their communities and serve the public interest. Term limits help block the corruption and arrogance that comes from career politicians who are more concerned with their perks and privileges than with what’s best for the people. No wonder recent Field polls show that Californians support term limits by almost 3 to 1. The lobbyists and big special interests don’t like term limits, but we know our California legislature is doing a much better job now. Californians overwhelmingly support term limits on Congress too, but career politicians in Washington have ignored our votes. That’s why it’s still politics-as-usual in our nation’s capitol. Recently Congress gave themselves yet another pay raise even though 80 percent of Americans opposed it. When it comes to issues we care about, Congress continues to do the bidding of the big special interests. They have refused to reform the election process, and thus 98.5 percent of incumbents won re-election in 1998. The longer politicians spend in Washington, the less they represent us and the more they represent the special interests, the party bosses and their own career interests. But it doesn’t have to be that way. The answer is to send citizen legislators—not career politicians—to represent us in Congress. When congressional candidates ask for our vote, we deserve to know whether they’re looking to spend a lifetime in Washington as professional politicians or limited terms as public servants. Proposition 27 allows candidates to tell us on the record. A YES vote on Proposition 27 gives you important term limits information about candidates for Congress.
VOTE YES on PROPOSITION 27. TERM LIMITS.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Mark Whisler, president of the Sacramento City Taxpayers’ Rights League[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 27:[1]
| “ |
TERM LIMITS ARE PURE FOLLY. Term Limits are pure folly, passed for self serving Corporations at our expense. Since term limits were enacted in California we have seen a steady rise in the power of corporate paid lobbyists to get their pork barrel bills through the Legislature. If this year’s Legislature doesn’t support their giveaway plans, Corporations just wait for next year’s Legislature. Politicians now need Corporate campaign money more than ever. LABELS ARE DIVISIVE AND DANGEROUS Let’s not get started labeling our politicians. EVERY GROUP will want their label (look at our license plates). Do we really want to see ‘‘supports gray whales’’, ‘‘supports midnight basketball in schools’’, or ‘‘supports keeping abortions’’. Let’s not make our voting ONLY about issues selected by others. Let’s not cloud our ballot with emotionally charged labels. How will Californian’s be able to elect moderate centrist consensus builders if every candidate is labeled by divisive issues to get elected? We won’t! SENIORITY Congress still runs on a seniority system. If California’s representatives can only stay 6 years the money, jobs, and benefits will flow to other states with long term representatives. That’s how the system works. Voting yes will be bad for California’s economy. LOBBYISTS FIX BILLS TO GET TAX DOLLARS FOR THEIR CORPORATE CLIENTS. Corporate lobbyists roam the US Capitol halls seeking tax breaks, reduced environmental responsibilities, lower employee benefit requirements, and other bills that are outright gifts to greedy Corporations. Under term limits, Corporate political campaign funds, more than ever, will decide who wins elections. If this passes, Corporations will have a stronger grip on our Congress, as they already do with our State Legislature. CALIFORNIA HAS NEEDS FOR ITS OWN CITIZENS AND CHILDREN. California needs to devote its limited tax revenues to schools, roads, bridges, parks, libraries, and police services (to name a few). Our taxes should not be spent bailing out wealthy corporations. Don’t be fooled. Voters have proven time and again they know when to vote NO, and this is one of them. YOU DON’T NEED TERM LIMITS. YOU CAN THROW THE ‘‘BUMS’’ OUT NOW. Resist the urge to use term limits to ‘‘throw the bums out.’’ If your elected officials are bums, vote them out. The current system may be weak, but term limits will replace our Congress with unelected, powerful, hidden self-interest groups. California has numerous problems that our collective wisdom and community spirit can solve. A Legislature or Congress, sold to the highest bidder every two years, is not the answer. We need educated Legislators who understand the complexities and nuances of issues. They are our best choice for meaningful solutions, not on-the-job trainees with short term fixes. DON’T LEGISLATE THOUGHT POLICE. This initiative demonizes politicians who favor a long term rational approach to solving our problems. It goes too far. Please read the initiative and you’ll see why to vote NO. This law is wrong for California. SAY NO TO THE CORPORATIONS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 27[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
To qualify for the ballot, proponents needed to submit 419,260 valid signatures.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
