LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND
Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of
Proposition 225
LIMITING CONGRESSIONAL TERMS.
PROPOSED U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Initiative Statute
THE QUESTION
Should California's state and federal legislators be required to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limits congressional terms?
THE SITUATION
California's delegation to Congress consists of two senators (6-year terms) and 52 members of the House of Representatives (2-year terms). There is no limit on the number of terms they can serve. Changes in qualifications for members of Congress can be made only by amending the U.S. Constitution.
THE PROPOSAL
Proposition 225 would:
require California's legislators to use their powers to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting U.S. Senators to two 6-year terms (12 years) and House of Representatives members to three 2-year terms (6 years).
require that all candidates for federal or state legislative office who do not support term limits be identified on the ballot as non-supporters.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Legislative Analyst says that the Secretary of State would have additional costs for tracking and reviewing the voting records on term limits of members of Congress and the Legislature. The cost of adding ballot statements would be minor.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Term limits would allow more competitive elections and increase the diversity of the backgrounds of legislators.
Term limits would encourage citizen legislators instead of career politicians.
OPPONENTS SAY
Limiting legislative terms would enhance the power of non-elected staffers and lobbyists.
Term limits demonstrates a fundamental lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the voters.
(Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.)