Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
California Proposition 140, Term Limits, Legislature Retirement Benefits, and Legislative Operating Costs Initiative (1990)
| California Proposition 140 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 1990 | |
| Topic Term limits and State legislatures measures | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 140 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 6, 1990. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported the following changes:
|
A "no" vote opposed the following initiative enacting terms limits, requiring state legislators to participate in the federal Social Security program, and limiting state legislative operating expenses. |
Proposition 140 was on the same ballot as Proposition 131. The two initiatives concerned term limits. Proposition 131 was defeated.
Election results
|
California Proposition 140 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
3,744,447 | 52.17% | ||
| No | 3,432,666 | 47.83% | ||
Aftermath
California Proposition 28 (2012)
On the June 5, 2012 ballot, California voters approved Proposition 28. It removed the term limits imposed by Proposition 140 on state legislators and replaced it with a 12 year limit of legislative service.
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 arguing that the 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. 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.[1]
The National Tax Limitation Committee and Bill Jones appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. At the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge panel heard the appeal. Two of them upheld Wilken's ruling. A majority of the active judges of the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case. When the case was reheard before the full circuit, Wilken's earlier verdict was overturned. and the law went into effect.[2]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 140 was as follows:
| “ | Limits on Terms of Office, Legislators' Retirement, Legislative Operating Costs. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
| ” |
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 |
Proposition 140 added or altered nine different sections in six different articles of the California Constitution:
- It added Section 1.5 to Article IV.
- It amended Section 2 of Article IV.
- It added Section 4.5 to Article IV.
- It added Section 7.5 to Article IV.
- It amended Section 11 of Article V.
- It amended Section 2 of Article IX.
- It amended Section 17 of Article XIII.
- It added Section 7 to Article XX.
- It added Section 11(d) to Article VII.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[3]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Supporters
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 140 were signed by:[3]
- Peter F. Schabarum
- Lewis K. Uhler of the National Tax Limitation Committee
- J.G. Ford, Jr.
- W. Bruce Lee, II of the California Business League
- Lee A. Phelps of the Alliance of California Taxpayers
- Art Pagdan, MD, of the National 1st VP, Filipino-American Political Association
Arguments in favor
Supporters of Proposition 140 made these arguments in its favor in the state's official voter guide:[3]
- "It will reform a political systems that has created a legislature of career politicians...a system that has given a tiny elite almost limitless power over the lives of California's taxpayers and consumers."
- It will "save taxpayers $60 million" in its first year alone by reducing the amount that state legislators are allowed to spend on their office expenses.
- It will "end extravagant pensions for legislators...the legislative pension system often pays more than the legislator received while in office."
- It will create more competitive elections.
- It will "remove the grip that vested interests have over the legislature."
- It will "put an end to the Sacramento web of special favors and patronage."
Opposition
Opponents
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 140 were signed by:[3]
- Dr. Regene L. Mitchell, president, Consumer Federation of California
- Lucy Blake, executive director, California League of Conservation Voters
- Dan Terry, president, California Professional Firefighters
- Ed Foglia, president, California Teachers Association
- Linda M. Tangren, state chair, California National Women's Political Caucus
Arguments against
The arguments presented in the official voter guide opposing Proposition 140 were:[3]
- It "limits our voting rights."
- It "takes away the cherished constitutional right to freely cast a ballot for candidates of our choice."
- The lifetime ban in it is not good public policy.
- It is unfair because it treats all elected officials the same, regardless of their level of competence or the causes they are fighting for.
- The changes it proposes to the pension system for state legislators hurts regular people who want to run for state legislature, not wealthy people who don't have to worry about their retirement.
- It forces "our representatives to become even more dependent on entrenched bureaucrats and shrewd lobbyists."
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 1990, at least 595,485 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Washington Post, "Court voids California term limits," October 8, 1997
- ↑ Case Law, Bates v. Jones, accessed July 28, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed July 28, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
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 |
