 |
|
 |
Protect Term Limits; Vote No on Proposition 93 In 1990 the voters of California spoke clearly on the subject of Legislative term limits by passing Proposition 140. This law established a maximum of three terms (total of 6 years) in the California Assembly, and a maximum of two terms (total of 8 years) in the California Senate. Supported by the current leaders in the Assembly and Senate, and because of a special loophole written into Proposition 93 the Proposition, if passed, will increase the time Assembly members can stay in office from 6 to 12 years, an increase of 100%. Proposition 93 seeks to increase the time state Senate members can stay in office by 50%. Because of the clear advantage and power which comes with incumbency A Bit of History For a moment, let me travel back in time to the creation of our Nation to seek the wisdom of one of our founding fathers. Roger Sherman is recognized as being the only member of the Continental Congress to have signed the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federal Constitution. Mr. Sherman observed that: “Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.” Here at the founding of our country we find a core principle: maintaining our democracy rests upon maintaining citizen legislators – women and men who stay close to those they are sworn to represent. Mark Petracca of the University of California studied the effects of the 1990 California term limits proposition. Dr. Petracca found that the term limits passed by Californians had, among other things, the following consequences: - Turnover in both legislative chambers increased markedly; - The number of women in both houses increased; and - The number of uncontested races declined. If Passed, Proposition 93 Significantly Extends Legislative Terms The fine print in Proposition 93 contains an incumbent protection provision. This special loophole benefits the 42 incumbents who would otherwise be termed out. In fact, Proposition 93 would increase the terms of more than 80% of the current members of the Assembly and Senate. It is no wonder why the Legislative leadership supports Proposition 93. If passed, the Proposition will enable them to stay in office for many more years. Follow the Money The campaign finance reports show that many individuals have donated their own money to oppose Proposition 93. However, the money supporting Proposition 93 comes primarily, and nearly exclusively, from special interests which have continuing business before the Legislature. It is not a surprise that special interests want to see the people they have already invested heavily in to stay in power. Preventing the concentration of personal power in the hands of a few politicians is at the heart of defeating Proposition 93. Conclusion The supporters of Proposition 93 brazenly claim it to be a reform. Yes, Proposition 93 does reform the will of California’s voters by taking steps to ensure Assembly members stay in office twice as long, and Senate members stay around 50% longer. Proposition 93 further distorts the will of Californians by closing the doors of opportunity to serve as elected representatives in Sacramento, by closing the doors to women, by decreasing the number of competitive seats, and by reducing accountability of elected representatives to the voters in their districts. Fresh ideas, fresh energy, and fresh people, coming often to seek approval from the voters is always a good thing, and is the best thing, for our democracy. We urge you to vote NO on PROPOSITION 93 this coming Tuesday. To learn more about Proposition 93, the scam to cripple term limits, please visit www.stopthepoliticians.com. If you have not already voted, I ask you to please remember to vote. Mark Pruner may be reached by email at: mark@markpruner.com » Back to News and Press
| |||
 |
|||
home |
|||
|
|
