Proposition 45 is an initiative constitutional amendment that would modify the state legislative term limits placed in the state Constitution by California voters in 1990. The 1990 initiative limited the number of terms legislators could serve in the same office to three two-year terms for members of the Assembly and two four-year terms for members of the Senate. A member who had served the maximum number of terms for one office could not run for that office again.

This measure would allow registered voters in local legislative districts to submit petitions allowing their incumbent legislator to run for reelection and serve if elected for a maximum of four years; two two-year terms for the Assembly and one four-year term for the Senate. The petitions would have to be signed by registered voters in the legislator's district equal in number to 20% of the ballots cast for that office in the last general election, and the signatures would be subject to verification. The option could be exercised only once per legislator. Petitions would have to be filed before the end of the legislator's final term.

There has been a national movement in recent years, backed by a Washington, D.C. organization called US Term Limits, to place term limits measures on the ballots in many states. They are a well-funded organization with a conservative political agenda that includes such things as school vouchers as well as term limits. Their efforts in some states, including California, to pass limits on Congressional terms were ultimately invalidated by the courts, which have ruled that those terms could only be changed by an amendment to the United States Constitution. They have, however, continued to push term limits for state legislative bodies in a number of states.

The 1990 term limits measure in California was among the first of measures that have now been enacted in 18 states. It limited statewide elected officers to two four-year terms, members of the Assembly to three two-year terms, and Senators to two four-year terms. A subsequent court case held that the limitation imposed a lifetime ban for a termed-out legislator to ever run for that house again.

The public's enthusiasm for term limits arose out of an understandable frustration with the real problem of challenging incumbents in safe districts, but term limits did nothing to deal with the underlying causes. Chief among these are a redistricting process and campaign finance laws that favor incumbents, as well as a general public distrust of politics and politicians. The term limits theory was that politics was inherently corrupting, and that the way to fight it was to simply throw people out of office every few years and bring in newcomers not yet infected by the virus.

As it turns out, the cure has not only failed to produce that result, but has arguably made the situation worse. Politicians who simply tried to protect their current seats in the legislature now also fight over district lines for the next office they may seek when they are termed out, producing a whole new layer of gerrymandering. The scramble for campaign dollars has also reached new highs, since new contenders for open seats need far more money to run for office than do incumbents. There are serious fights for open seats, but they are primarily battles between members of the same party with few policy differences, and they tend to be very expensive.

Term limits have had some beneficial results in opening opportunities for new blood, especially for women and minorities. Contributing factors have included the demographic changes in the state, the number of Latinos becoming voting citizens in response to anti-immigrant initiatives of the 1990s, and the fact that women and minorities were already more numerous at the level of local office, where they had developed name recognition and a fund-raising base. The frustration, however, is that just as they begin to learn the ropes and develop as leaders, they are termed out. The recent redistricting did not favor them, and their opportunities to run for other offices appear to have been diminished.

Term limits have also produced a loss of institutional memory in the Legislature and of the experienced leadership that understands the process of government and knows how to put policy into practice. The San Francisco Chronicle said that "term limits produce a rapid turnover of amateur lawmakers who never get enough time to build leadership skills, learn how to write legislation or gain expertise in making public policy."

Term limits have also made it more difficult for smaller organizations, especially public interest groups like the League, to lobby effectively in Sacramento. They are not big donors and generally depend on building relationships with like-minded legislators to pursue their legislative goals. Groups of local voters have the same difficulty in getting their representatives to know them and understand their issues.

• Proposition 45 does not remove term limits. It simply gives local voters the option to extend the term of their own legislator for a maximum of four more years.
• For a termed-out legislator to run again, supporters must gather valid signatures equal to 20% of the registered voters in the district who voted for that office in the last general election.

• This option could be used only one time per legislator.

• These are particularly difficult times when we need experienced leadership.

• Local voters should have the right to retain legislators who have earned their confidence for a longer time if they wish.

• This is a reasonable reform that gives decision-making power back to the voters where it belongs.

SUPPORTERS	OPPONENTS
Signing the ballot argument for: Dan Terry, President California Professional Firefighters Hank Lacayo, President Congress of California Seniors Kay McVay, President California Nurses Association	Signing the ballot argument against: Richard Riordan Former Mayor of Los Angeles Lewis K. Uhler President, National Tax Limitation Committee Edna Gonzalez President, "Stop the Politicians"

The rebuttal to the opponents' argument was signed by Robert P. Blankenship, President,

California Police Chiefs Association; Mary Bergan, President, California Federation of Teachers; Barbara B. Inatsugu, President, League of Women Voters of California.

Other organizations supporting the measure include the California Retailers Association, California Business Roundtable, California Association of Health Plans, Consumer Federation of California, California Tax Reform Association, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California School Employees Association, California Medical Association, California Association of Professional Scientists.

The rebuttal to the supporters' argument was signed by Edward J. "Ted" Costa, CEO, California Committee to Limit Terms; Anita Anderson, V.P., US Term Limits; and Manuel S. Klausner.

Anne Henderson, LWVC Legislative Director, annehenderson@worldnet.att.net

Marion Taylor, LWVC Government Director, mtaylor@got.net

Citizens' Right to Petition, YES on Proposition 45, Karin Caves, 916-443-3416, www.petitionrights.org

Editor:

These are difficult times when Californians need experienced leadership in Sacramento able to respond to new problems quickly and effectively. The very short legislative terms now in effect stand in the way of retaining a core of such leadership.

Proposition 45 on the March ballot offers a reasonable and fair reform. It would allow local voters the option to retain for up to four years an experienced legislator who has earned their confidence. The option could be used only one time and would require that petitions with verified signatures of 20% of the voters in the district be submitted before a termed-out legislator could run again.

Proposition 45 gives local control back to the citizens of each district to decide who will represent them in the state Legislature.

Vote YES on Proposition 45.