|
STATEWIDE RACES
U.S. Senate
Governor
Lieutenant
Governor
Secretary
of State
Controller
Treasurer
Attorney
General
Insurance
Commissioner
Superintendent
of Public Instruction
Board of Equalization
 
STATE BALLOT
MEASURES
Prop 219
Prop 220
Prop 221
Prop 222
Prop 223
Prop 224
Prop 225
Prop 226
Prop 227
CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL
RACES
Districts
1 - 26
Districts
27 - 52
LEGISLATIVE
RACES
STATE SENATE
Districts 2 - 40
STATE ASSEMBLY
Districts
1 - 20
Districts
21 - 40
Districts
41 - 60
Districts
61 - 80
|
Background | Proposal
| Arguments for
| Arguments against
An initiative statute calling on California's elected officials to help enact a constitutional
amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
Background:
The notion that the terms of elected officials
should be limited in some way has been knocked around since the formulation of the
Republic. It wasn't until 1990, though, that the notion of limiting the terms of
legislative officers really caught fire with the passage in California of Proposition
140. Two years later, voters adopted Proposition 164, which extended term limits
to the state's Senators and members of Congress. But while the courts have since
upheld the state's authority to limit its own legislators, congressional term limits
are a much dicier proposition, since the qualifications for holding office are determined
not by the state, but by the federal constitution. Supporters of state-enacted congressional
term limits argued the were entitled to make the change, since states are charged
with responsibility for determining the shape and makeup of the ballot itself. When
an Arkansas congressional term-limit law reached the U.S. Supreme Court, it ruled
state-imposed term limits unconstitutional, effectively invalidating Proposition
164. So term limit advocates went back to the drawing board and came up with a new
strategy: the "advisory" ballot measure. Voters in states with the initiative
process would be asked to say whether or not they wanted their representatives to
support term limits. Since these measures are not legally binding on the state's
representatives, they are not subject to court challenge. They could, however, become
a powerful political tool in the hands of those advocating for term limits. Voting
against a federal constitutional amendment limiting terms would, in effect, be construed
by advocates as a vote against the will of the people.
Proposal:
Proposition 225 declares that it is the official
position of the People of California that its elected officials should vote to amend
the United States Constitution to limit a person to no more than two terms as a senator
and no more than three terms as a representative. The measure instructs the California
Legislature to ask Congress to enact such an amendment. If an amendment is proposed
by Congress, the measure instructs members of the Legislature to vote to ratify it.
The measure requires that voters be informed if a candidate for Congress or the Legislature
has failed to support the congressional term limit amendment. The legislative analyst
estimates relatively minor costs to the state and to counties.
Arguments for:
Supporters of Proposition 225 include U.S.
Term Limits. They say term limits return government to its citizen roots. By turning
out members of Congress every few years, they say government will become more responsive
and relate better to its constituents. They also maintain that, notwithstanding the
problems faced by past congressional term limit proposals, this measure is clearly
constitutional, since it doesn't formally bind legislators to a particular vote.
Arguments against:
Formal opponents include the Sacramento City
Taxpayers' Rights League, but opposition to term limits of any sort exists among
several elected officials in both parties. They argue term limits serve as a power
source to lobbyists and corporations trying to put pork barrel bills through the
Congress. Term-limited legislators, they contend, are less informed and more susceptible
to special interest maneuvering and the influence of large campaign donors. They
also suggest the "advisory" vote amounts to a "witch hunt," in
that the initiative requires our elected officials to be investigated and branded
for their thoughts on term limits.
-- Article by Tippy Young
|
PROP. 225
