Prop 93 shenanigans

Both supporters and opponents of Proposition 93 are wooing Californians this year, with a purported term-limits “correction” proposition (my definition). First, let me disclose that I am and have already voted against Prop. 93 and my reasons for not supporting this proposition is simple – it’s a BAD, BAD, BAD idea!

Way back, when California citizens first began to consider term limits, I read all the available information and on paper it looked like a good idea. However, as fate would have it, term limits looked better in paper than in practice. And, just like with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, politicians, their supporters, consultants, lobbyists, etc., found creative ways around it and what was a noble idea quickly succumbed to corruption and manipulations and machinations. So too with term limits, elected officials chose to interpret term limits as hurdles to overcome in order to stay in office; of course they justified this reasoning that they sought to remain in office in order to complete the important tasks that their constituents had sent them to Sacramento to complete, and this is not in and of itself a ignoble ideal. Unfortunately, many of these same elected officials missed the other message that the constituents were trying to send which was we don’t want you to turn this into a life-long career.

So now we are being offered Prop 93 as a fix to a “bad” term-limit law. Proponents of Prop 93 are trying to sell the voter on the idea that letting legislators spend up to twelve consecutive years in one house is far better than the current system where they can only spend two consecutive terms in the Assembly or the State Senate or a combination thereof before being termed out thus prompting an elected official to launch a bid at the next available “elected” slot. We are also being told that passing Prop 93 would allow our elected official to become better informed and educated on their roles and responsibilities thus better servants of the people – and we are warned that failure to pass Prop 93 could mean leaving “outside” influences such as lobbyists, specials interest groups (and though they don’t mention it unions) in charge of our legislature and our government.

Opponents argue that this is a veiled attempt to thwart the will of the people and that it will actually extend the terms of up to 42 sitting legislators (Democrat and Republican alike). It is a simple, and I believe is a pretty accurate interpretation of the Prop 93.

It was this extension of office limits for sitting legislators that raised the “could this be a scam” alert in this voter’s mind. If Prop 93 was about correcting what was a perceived imbalance then it would have made sense for it to apply to newly elected officials, and not those already in office who had been elected under the old terms. Additionally, the argument that it would make for a better educated or prepared elected officials sounded ludicrous to me since if that person is that incompetent to start with then no amount of years in office could serve to better educate them, and lets not forget that each elected official has a cadre of aides and advisors, that are paid for by you and me, whose jobs are to inform and educate their boss; not to mention the entire bureaucracy of Sacramento that is in the business supposedly to serve as a resource to and for our elected officials.

So on Tuesday, February 5th I hope you vote no on Prop 93; and remember the best term limit we can impose on our elected officials is to not vote for them when they do scummy things, break the law, ignore the will of the people, grow arrogant of the privilege granted to them by the people, etc. So remember to be an informed voter and vote each and every time the opportunity presents itself.