Since last month, opponents of Proposition 93 have been
hauling a life-sized Trojan horse around
as a statement on the item’s outwardly benevolent but inherently deceptive
nature. While this political ploy revels in its own melodrama, a close
examination of the issue illustrates the appropriateness of this metaphor:
Presented as a poorly disguised gift to cap term limits and encourage
politicians to reject the influence of lobbyists, the proposition is a
last-ditch effort for current state leaders to hold on to the power they may
soon lose.
If approved, Proposition 93 will allow members of the
California State Legislature to remain in office for 12 consecutive years, two
years less than the 14 total authorized by 1990’s Proposition 140. Currently,
members may serve six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate. Some
analysts have argued this does not give them adequate time to forge substantive
changes before depending on lobbyist funds for re-election. Proposition 93
would allow legislators to serve the 12 years in one house, which proponents
claim would allow them more independence from outside influence.
The catch? Current senators could stay in office four years
longer than current term-limit laws dictate, and acting members of the assembly
would pocket an extra six. Not surprisingly, two of Proposition 93’s most vocal
backers — Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-
and Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata (D-Oakland) — will have to leave
office in the event that the item fails.
A little more subtlety would have helped, gentlemen.
It would be hasty, however, to reject the item merely
because its key proponents have a vested interest in its outcome — such is the
nature of politics. However, in looking at
voter track record, the people have spoken out against any political tinkering
with Proposition 140, clearly emphasizing the importance of openness and
transparency in their officials’ term-related actions.
For example, when former Senate President Pro Tempore John
Burton (D-San Francisco) tried to mitigate Proposition 140 in 2002 by
spearheading Proposition 45 — which would have amended the state constitution
to soften the imposed term limits — 58 percent of voters were quick to shoot it
down. It is clear that Californians support the law they fought for on multiple
occasions, but perhaps the state’s elected officials know better than the
uneducated masses.
While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger claims that voters have
previously gone “too far” when restricting term limits, he has surprisingly
expressed support for Proposition 93 — a measure that would, on the surface,
impose even more stringent regulations than those already in place.
Perhaps this seeming contradiction would explain why the
Republican Party that Schwarzenegger purportedly represents does not even back
the item. If Proposition 93’s motives were as honest and well-meaning as its
proponents argue, voters would not be left scratching their heads and
second-guessing who will really reap the benefits of its passage.
In this case, if Proposition 93 looks like a duck, walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck — it’s probably a horse.
