California Proposition 28, Change in State Legislative Term Limits Initiative (June 2012)

California Proposition 28
Election date June 5, 2012
Topic Term limits
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

California Proposition 28 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on June 5, 2012. It was approved.

A yes vote supported this initiative to do the following:  remove the limit of two 4-year terms for state senators; remove the limit of three 2-year terms for state representatives; create a lifetime term limit of twelve years in the state legislature.

A no vote opposed this initiative to create lifetime term limits of twelve years in the state legislature, thereby supporting current law, which provided that senators may serve two 4-year terms and that representatives may serve three two-year terms.

Election results

California Proposition 28
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,031,554	61.04%
No		1,935,058	38.96%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 28 made the following changes to term limits in the California State Legislature:

• removed the limit of two 4-year terms for state senators;
• removed the limit of three 2-year terms for state representatives;
• created a lifetime term limit of 12 years, permitting a legislator to serve these 12 years in either the California State Senate or the California State Assembly.

Proposition 28 increased the number of years a legislator can remain in the California State Senate from 8 years to 12 years and increased the number of years a legislator can remain in the California State Assembly from 6 years to 12 years

The changes applied to legislators who were first elected after the effective date of the initiative.

California voters first enacted term limits on the California State Legislature in 1990 through approval of Proposition 140.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 28 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 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.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

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 • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV

See also: Text of California Proposition 28

The measure amended Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution. The full text of the constitutional changes are below:

Support

Website banner of the "Yes on 28" campaign

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce sponsored the measure and named their group "Californians for a Fresh Start."

Supporters

• Jennifer A. Waggoner, president, League of Women Voters of California
• Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause
• Hank Lacayo, president of the Congress of California Seniors

Official arguments

Jennifer A. Waggoner, president of the League of Women Voters of California; Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause; and Hank Lacayo, president of the Congress of California Seniors, wrote the arguments that appeared on the state's 2012 primary voter guide in support of Proposition 28.

“

Our current term limits law needs fixing. It’s two decades old, but our Legislature is still filled with career politicians more focused on campaigning for their next office than doing their job. Proposition 28 is a simple reform that will help make our Legislature more accountable. A STRICT 12-YEAR LIMIT. The current term limits law is based on the number of terms served. It says legislators can only complete their 14-year lifetime limit by serving three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. But the courts have opened up a loophole allowing politicians to serve up to nearly 17 years by filling partial term vacancies that don’t get counted as part of their limit. Prop. 28 reduces the lifetime limit to 12 years and closes that “17-year loophole” by imposing a strict limit based on the number of years served in the Legislature, not on the number of terms. After 12 years in the Legislature—whether in the Assembly, Senate, or a combination of the two—a politician is prohibited from running for the Legislature. Every year counts. To make sure there are no more loopholes, current and former legislators are prohibited from using Proposition 28 to extend their lifetime limits. MAKE LEGISLATORS MORE ACCOUNTABLE. The current term limits law inadvertently encourages the wrong behaviors. The only way legislators can complete their lifetime limit is to move from office to office. Once elected, they start holding fundraisers and looking for their next office. Many Assembly members fail to reach the six-year maximum before they leave to seek their next office. Politicians looking ahead for their next office are not concentrating on representing concerns of their current district. Proposition 28 gives legislators the choice of running for re-election in the same district instead of flipping offices to complete their lifetime limits. This will focus legislators on serving their districts to get re-elected instead of on lining up support in Sacramento to run elsewhere. FOCUS LEGISLATORS ON DOING THEIR JOB. Legislators who are jumping from office to office aren’t focused on learning their job. This leaves legislators ill-prepared to stand up to more experienced special interest lobbyists and take on the big issues and challenges facing our state. Almost 40% of Assembly members are new to their jobs after each election. By removing the incentive to change office just to complete their lifetime limits, Proposition 28 means legislators will be more likely to learn their job and develop the expertise to get things done. HELP FIX OUR TERM LIMITS LAW. THE STATUS QUO ISN’T WORKING. Proposition 28 won’t solve all the problems in Sacramento. But it is a step forward that brings positive change that helps make the Legislature more effective and accountable. READ PROP. 28 FOR YOURSELF. Prop. 28 does what it says. It’s a strict 12-year limit that closes the 17-year loophole and improves accountability. Prop. 28 is a step in the right direction. Yes on 28.

”

Opposition

"No on 28" website banner

Opponents

• The California Republican Party

Official arguments

Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits; Anita Anderson, vice-president of Parents in Charge Foundation; and Lew Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee wrote the arguments that appeared on the state's 2012 primary voter guide in opposition to Proposition 28.

“

PROPOSITION 28 IS A SCAM! It is one of the most dishonest and deceitful ballot measures in the history of California—and that’s saying a lot! This is just the latest slimy effort by politicians and their special interest supporters to try and FOOL VOTERS into gutting California’s voter-approved term limits law. Proposition 28 is designed to trick voters into thinking it strengthens terms limits when it does the exact opposite. Prop. 28 actually weakens term limits for state legislators and dramatically lengthens the amount of time politicians can stay in office! That is why Prop. 28 is written and funded with millions of dollars by the most powerful special interests in California including unions opposed to pension reforms that could save taxpayers billions of dollars. Proposition 28’s top backer is a wealthy developer who sought a special exemption from environmental regulations by the Legislature—at the exact same time he was paying to qualify this initiative—so that he could make millions by building a sports stadium. The Legislature gladly gave the developer the sweetheart deal he wanted—and he rewarded the politicians by making sure that those who were elected to the state Legislature would be able to stay in office for many more years than the current term limits law allows. The Los Angeles Times on December 30th, 2009 reported, “Two months after state lawmakers exempted a football stadium proposed for the City of Industry from environmental laws, the sports venue’s developer has contributed $300,000 to a ballot measure that would allow future legislators to stay in one office longer.” Look at the facts and judge for yourself. Proposition 28 allows politicians to be in the California State Assembly for 12 years—not the 6 year maximum permitted under current law. That means members of the State Assembly will actually have THEIR TIME IN OFFICE DOUBLED—NOT REDUCED! Proposition 28 also allows politicians to be in the California State Senate for 12 years—not the 8 year maximum permitted under current law. That means members of the State Senate will actually have THEIR TIME IN OFFICE INCREASED BY 50%—NOT REDUCED. The politicians and special interests spent millions to try and stop term limits when it first passed. Since then, they have tried twice to trick voters into letting the politicians stay in power for many more years. Proposition 28 is just their latest slimy trick to fool voters. Don’t let them get away with it! If Proposition 28 passes, career politicians and special interests win. California’s voters lose. Proposition 28 is a scam to subvert the will of the voters. Don’t let the politicians and special interests get away with tricking us and finally succeed in gutting term limits. Don’t be fooled by this sneaky effort to sabotage term limits. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 28!

”

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

• Chico News & Review: "We’ve never supported term limits. They’re an emotional reaction to dissatisfaction with the legislative process and have had more negative than positive consequences. After all, voters already had the ability to limit lawmakers’ terms simply by voting them out of office. That said, Proposition 28 will be an improvement, especially in the Assembly, and should be passed."

• Daily Democrat: (Woodland, California): "Term limits have been a disaster for California. When they were approved in 1990, voters were promised they would reduce the influence of special interests and lobbyists, but the opposite has happened. With little expertise and lots of pressure to raise money and find their next office, lawmakers now rely more heavily than ever on lobbyists, who write many of the laws that representatives put their names on. Term limits should be repealed. They have not improved the caliber of representation. Voters ought to be able to choose the best candidate, regardless of time served. But repeal is unrealistic, so reform is the next best thing. Californians should vote yes on Proposition 28 in the June 5 election."

• Eastern Group Publications (including the Eastside Sun, Northeast Sun, Mexican American Sun, Bell Gardens Sun, City Terrace Comet, Commerce Comet, Montebello Comet, Monterey Park Comet, ELA Brookyln Belvedere Comet, Wyvernwood Chronicle and the Vernon Sun): "There is no guarantee that Prop 28 will turn our legislators into thoughtful law makers, but its worth a try."

• Fresno Bee: "California's version of legislative term limits has proven to be a quick fix that made matters worse, especially in the dysfunctional Assembly. Voters will have a chance to repair the system, albeit slightly, by approving Proposition 28 on the June 5 ballot, but not for the reasons cynically cited by its promoters...Term limits should be repealed for a basic reason -- they haven't worked. But voters love them, and that support is unlikely to change any time soon. Given that political reality, the electorate could improve the system with the incremental change in term limits contained in Proposition 28."

• Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Proposition 28 would let constituents keep popular representatives in Sacramento a little longer, without diluting the basic term-limits message that political office is not a lifetime appointment."

• Los Angeles Times: "Legislative term limits are a bad idea, and The Times opposes them. But to get rid of term limits altogether, Sacramento politicians would first have to earn the trust of voters, and we don't see that happening any time in the next millennium. So reformers have offered a half-measure: Reduce the maximum possible time any single politician can serve in the Legislature from the current 14 years — a full six in the Assembly followed by a full eight in the Senate — to 12 years, but allow all 12 to be served in one house, or any combination of 12 in the two houses."

• Marin Independent Journal: "California is a complex state, ill-served by constant legislative turnover. Proposition 28 is more of a tweak than a reform. A case could be made that longer terms would be more helpful."

• Merced Sun-Star: "Term limits haven't helped the Legislature become more effective; we would like to see them eliminated but we don't think that will happen anytime soon. Until then, the electorate could help the situation by approving an incremental change contained in Proposition 28."

• Mercury News: "California is too big and complex to be governed by amateur legislators. Writing effective laws and seeing through shams requires deep understanding of the state's problems and time to build trust in partners who share policy goals. New Assembly members have neither, so most often they rely on lobbyists to tell them what to care about. Then they sit back as those lobbyists direct campaign donations their way -- all without having done a thing to improve California's future."

• North County Times: "We believe the lack of institutional knowledge and memory imposed by too-strict term limits has contributed at least partly to the dysfunction in Sacramento."

• Sacramento Bee: "Term limits should be repealed. They haven't worked. But until voter attitudes change – and that won't happen any time soon – the electorate could help the situation by approving an incremental change contained in Proposition 28."

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "It’s time to make small but important revisions to the giant mistake that California voters made 22 years ago, when they chose to limit state lawmakers to a maximum of three terms in the Assembly and two terms in the Senate."

• Santa Barbara Independent: "Term limits should be abolished outright, not reformed. But since cookies aren’t on the menu, we’ll take the crumbs."

• Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Proposition 28 is on the June 5 ballot to alter Proposition 140 and give voters a chance at keeping quality representatives for longer."

• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Experience counts. California faces substantial financial and policy challenges, not to mention a fractured political process that seems to render legislators unable or unprepared to take up these problems. Proposition 28 would at least restore common sense to term limits."

• Santa Maria Times: "Our position over the years is that California’s version of term limits is a disaster, but Prop. 28’s tweaking takes a step in the right direction."

• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "If we had our way, Proposition 28 would go much further. Overall, we believe these limits are far too restrictive and do a disservice to the state as a whole by hobbling effective lawmakers and limiting the choices of voters. At the same time voters shouldn’t pass on an opportunity to reform this broken system, no matter how modest the change."

• Vallejo Times-Herald: "We won't beat a dead horse and argue once again that voters should have the right at election time to re-elect good lawmakers or throw out the bad ones. Proposition 28 is before us, and given that term limits is with us to stay, we feel that something must be done to reform this so-called reform."

• Ventura County Star: "Some relative newbies even have been thrust into major leadership positions due to turnover since California voters approved term limits in 1990. Time and again, the Legislature failed to measure up to historic fiscal and policy challenges; The Star believes the outcome might have been different with more seasoned legislators."

Opposition

• Appeal-Democrat: "The only solution to legislators who have been in office too long is the old-fashioned approach: vote them out. The best solution to unaccountable, runaway government, whether politicians or nonpoliticians are running the show, is to reduce its size and scope to the point that the damage done is minimal. Prop. 28 incorporates neither of these common-sense solutions."

• Chico Enterprise Record: "Proposition 28 is just the latest attempt to alter voter-approved term limits. Some say that longer terms help lawmakers develop a deeper understanding of their office, the issues and their constituents. But longer limits don't seem to accomplish that. Instead, it seems politicians drift away from their constituents, and head down a path of their own making."

• Orange County Register: "Most legislators serve their time in Sacramento in one house or the other. The proposition would extend those tenures considerably. If voters want to reduce the time politicians hang around in Sacramento, Prop. 28 isn't the solution."

• Riverside Press-Enterprise: "California does not need to tinker with legislative term limits right now. The state should see how well impartial redistricting and nonpartisan primaries work before considering lesser changes. Voters should reject Prop. 28 on the June 5 ballot until there is evidence of pressing need for this change."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

Polling information for Proposition 28 is below:

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
February 21-28, 2012	PPIC	68%	24%	8%	2,001
March 14-19, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	51%	32%	17%	1,500
May 14-20, 2012	PPIC	62%	29%	9%	2,002
May 17-21, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	49%	33%	12%	1,002
May 21-29, 2012	Field	50%	28%	22%	608

Background

Term limits in California

See also: California Proposition 140, Term Limits, Legislature Retirement Benefits, and Legislative Operating Costs Initiative (1990)

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 approved term limits on the California Legislature in 1990 through Proposition 140. Proposition 140 limited state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms.

Ballot measures concerning term limits in California

See also: Term limits on the ballot and List of California ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to term limits in California.

1. California Proposition 140, Term Limits, Legislature Retirement Benefits, and Legislative Operating Costs Initiative (1990)
2. California Proposition 225, Ballot Line Indicating Position on Term Limits Initiative (June 1998)
3. California Proposition 27, Congressional Candidate Voluntary Term Limit Declarations Initiative (March 2000)
4. California Proposition 45, Local Legislative Option to Extend Term Limits via Petition Amendment (March 2002)
5. California Proposition 131, Term Limits and Campaign Finance Limits Initiative (1990)
6. California Proposition 93, Amendment to Term Limits Initiative (February 2008)
7. California Proposition 164, Terms Limits for Legislators Initiative (1992)
8. California Proposition 11, Qualifications for Certain Term Limits Amendment (October 1911)

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and California ballot initiative petition signature costs

The state process

To qualify for the ballot, 694,354 valid signatures were required.

Details about the initiative

• On October 8, 2009, Lance H. Olson of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn drafted the filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title for the measure.

• The Attorney General's office provided that title, and the measure was 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.

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.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• State legislative term limits on the ballot
• 2012 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

• 2012 Primary voter guide
• Proposition 28 full text