THE QUESTION Should California candidates for Congress be able to voluntarily sign a non-binding declaration to serve no more than three terms (six years) in the House of Representatives or two terms (12 years) in the U.S. Senate? PROVISIONS
BACKGROUND Federal law does not limit the number of terms U.S. representatives or senators may serve in Congress. Representatives are elected for two-year terms and U.S. senators for six-year terms. In 1992, California voters adopted Proposition 164 to limit the terms of California's congressional representatives to six years and U.S. senators to 12 years. This ballot initiative passed by a vote of 52% to 48%. At least twenty-two other states have passed similar proposals to limit the terms of their elected congressional representatives. No state's congressional term limits proposal has taken effect, however, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that states do not have the right to change or add to qualifications for federal elected offices. Changing these qualifications, the court ruled, would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Several amendments to set congressional term limits have been introduced in the House, but none has received the necessary two-thirds vote for passage. Since 1995, nine states have passed legislation similar to Proposition 27, allowing congressional candidates to voluntarily declare their intentions to limit their terms in office. A number of states also have enacted some form of term limits for their state legislators. California voters adopted Proposition 140 in 1990, limiting state assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Proposition 140 in 1998. According to an analysis of the 104th U.S. House seniority system published in the Yale Political Quarterly (12/98), congressional term limits would dismantle the seniority system employed by the U.S. House since 1910 to select committee chairs. Supporters of the seniority system endorse the stability it offers by distributing political influence among committee chairs, the predictability it provides in selecting committee chairs, and the harmony it promotes by lessening power battles over committee chair selections. Opponents of seniority, according to the analysis, believe it creates a generation gap in decision making and "gives great power to those least likely to be attuned to contemporary needs." FISCAL EFFECT The fiscal effect is unknown, but probably not significant. There would be election costs to the state and counties for printing candidates' term-limit declaration materials. IMPACT OF YES OR NO VOTE A YES vote means candidates seeking election to the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate would be allowed, but not required, to state on the ballot and in voter education materials whether or not they intend to limit their terms in office to six years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. A NO vote means candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate would not be permitted to state on the ballot whether or not they intend to limit their terms in office. SUPPORTERS SAY
OPPONENTS SAY
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION The official ballot arguments in support are signed by: George E. Martinez, Community Activist; Sally Reed Impastato, Proponent, California Term Limit Committee; Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee; Lisa Powers, Northern California Co-Chair, California Term Limit Committee; Juan Carlos Ros, Community Activist; and Dwight Filley, Southern California Co-Chair, California Term Limit Committee. The official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Mark Whisler, President, Sacramento City Taxpayers Rights League. For more information: Supporters: Dwight Filley, California Term Limit Committee, 858-456-0858, www.caltermlimits.org Opponents: No On 27, Sacramento City Taxpayers' Rights League, 916-447-6340, www.NoTermLimits.com
|
