Despite exponential growth in the last century, San Diego County has not meaningfully updated its charter — its governing document — in 48 years. In that time, the metropolitan area has doubled in population, and its issues have grown in both scope and complexity. In an effort to address this crisis, County Supervisor Chair Terra Lawson-Remer has proposed the extension of maximum term limits for the Board of Supervisors from eight to 12 years.
As a result of increased time for initiative and execution of policy, longer term limits have the potential to inspire major solutions to the county’s infrastructural issues. Problems like the housing crisis and welfare struggles otherwise go unaddressed due to constant turnover. However, term extensions would also greatly jeopardize the proper distribution of political power and weaken the public’s ability to hold politicians accountable. Increasing the term limit enables political figures to more easily consolidate power and gatekeep elected positions. The potential benefits are unlikely to outweigh the danger posed by the entrenchment of power.
More importantly, there is no significant evidence from these eight-year terms that suggest an added four years could make a difference. The issue at hand is not a lack of follow-through, but a lack of initiative by those in power to address the systemic infrastructure issues that plague the county. To assume a 12-year period would make a considerable difference in policy implementation is a significant gamble.
Longer terms could lead to stagnation or a decrease in leadership quality. County Supervisor Jim Desmond, who opposes this proposal, argues that term limits facilitate progress and the turnover of ideas that naturally comes with each new board member. Politicians overstaying their welcome are likely to be misaligned with their constituents, devoting time to addressing issues that may be newly inconsequential to San Diego’s rapidly evolving society.
Worst of all, term limit extensions could exacerbate incumbency advantage. Though extending term limits retains periodic electoral cycles, it will allow the politicians in the room to stay longer, impose authoritarian policies, and take advantage of their constituents. For democracy to maintain its efficacy, elections must be meaningfully competitive, which becomes more difficult the longer an individual remains in office.
Some argue that, despite its flaws, Lawson-Remer’s independent ethics commission, specifically proposed to oversee county supervisors, provides accountability and visibility. This seven-person ethics committee could offer stability to legal reform, especially if it focuses on combating corruption and ensuring transparency. However, the selection of the ethics committee raises questions regarding oversight and political alignment; members of the Boards of Supervisors will appoint five commissioners, and the county counsel will decide the other two.
To ensure genuine accountability for the Board of Supervisors, it is more advisable to assign an ethics committee through a judicial panel, or multistakeholder panel without personal interests in this nomination. Additionally, if this proposal passes, it must come with legitimate failsafes beyond the ethics committee. These failsafes could include public financial transparency or independent oversight directors that address internal corruption. We cannot ignore the potential for this policy to cause corruption that will worsen the state of our county rather than help it
Broken systems can only be fixed through accountability and careful reforms. An increase in term limits will only work if the other parts of the system, too, work toward real policy change and execution.
For a county that has waited 48 years to change its charter, it is imperative we are not hasty with execution. The design and development of policy frameworks is a process that is complex but essential to the progress of a county, especially when faced with constantly evolving socioeconomic challenges. When that reform becomes motivated by self-perpetuation rather than collective advancement, it ceases to be reform at all.
