Action Guide June 2, 1998

DESCRIPTION

This is an initiative statute that would establish support for congressional term limits as the official position of the people of California and would require California’s state and federal legislators to support a U.S. Constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms. Members of the State Legislature and members of Congress from California would be instructed to work to propose and pass a constitutional amendment limiting U.S. Senators to two terms (12 years) and U.S. Representatives to three terms (6 years) in office.

If any incumbent legislator or member of Congress did not vote to support such an amendment, the ballot would have to include the statement “Disregarded Voters’ Instruction on Term Limits.” If non-incumbent candidates for those offices did not sign a Term Limits Pledge, the words “Declined to Pledge to Support Term Limits” would appear next to their names on the ballot. The Secretary of State would be responsible for reviewing incumbents’ voting records to determine if a statement should appear on the ballot.

BACKGROUND

In 1992 California voters adopted Proposition 164, setting term limits for California senators and representatives in Congress. LWVC opposed that measure. It has not gone into effect because the United States Supreme Court ruled on similar laws in other states that the qualifications of office for federal elective officials may be changed only by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states. They may be proposed by two-thirds votes of the members of both houses of Congress, or by a constitutional convention called upon application to Congress by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.

The measure has been dropped by its proponents, since court decisions in other states have ruled that initiatives similar to Proposition 225 violate the procedure for proposing constitutional amendments. The ballot argument submitted in favor of the measure says that, in light of the court decisions, “passage of this measure will likely result only in needless and costly litigation,” and that another measure will appear on the November ballot.

IMPORTANT POINTS

• Even its supporters say Prop 225 is unconstitutional as written and would like to see it removed from the ballot.

• It is unnecessary. As LWVUS President Becky Cain has said, "We already have term limits. They are called elections."

• Such limits tend to reduce the effectiveness of Congress and consequently upset the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency.

Supporters Signing ballot argument for: Sally Reed Impastato No affiliation listed

Opponents Signing ballot argument against: Mark Whisler, President Sacramento City Taxpayers’ Rights League