The Cupertino Courier

Letters & Opinions

Term limit measures pose potential problems

By Norm Kline

Many believe that the current system of term limits for the state Senate and Assembly doesn't provide enough time for the members to gain the expertise and knowledge necessary to effectively run a state the size and complexity of California.

There are two alternatives being proposed. One is Assembly Bill (SCA 9) and the other is a proposed initiative (1-S). In many ways they are very similar. Each allows a person to serve a total of 12 years in either chamber versus the current six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate. SCA 9 couples term limit reform with redistricting, while the initiative doesn't, but it does "grandfather'' certain candidates that would otherwise be out in '08.

Both these alternatives are very dangerous. In trying to fix an issue of term lengths, they are changing the nature of both chambers and potentially causing very serious issues down the road.

Unlike the U.S. Senate, the main purpose for the state Senate is to provide a seasoned debate by fewer but more senior and perhaps less hot-headed politicians. The U.S. Senate also provides this, but its main purpose is to protect state's rights and the minority opinion through a complex but workable form of disproportional representation and the filibuster.

In these new proposals, where you can serve 12 total years in either chamber, there is no reason to even try to move up to the Senate once you are well established in the lower chamber. On the contrary, because of the increased length of seniority, it would be unwise to trade a senior position in the Assembly for a junior position in the Senate.

If you are a known player in a region, you might be tempted to run directly for Senate and bypass the Assembly altogether, regardless of your experience or background. Why be one of 80 when you can be one of 40?

The core concept of the lower chamber being a training ground and the Senate consisting of more senior policymakers is diminished greatly in these proposals. The main argument for not just going to a single House is that the upper chamber provides a cooler and more experienced debate.

Although not perfect, the current system forces assembly members to gear up fast and then compete for the fewer seats in the Senate. There are winners and losers in this system, but isn't that what we want? The best move higher, and the others rotate back to private life, knowing that they have our thanks for serving.

So what is the real purpose of these proposals? It is no secret that once elected, an incumbent is pretty much guaranteed reelection. So instead of being out of office in six years in the Assembly or eighth years in the Senate, you are guaranteed twelve. This looks extremely self-serving and both proposals should be defeated.

An alternative is deal directly with the core problem with a simple, easy-to-understand change. Although eight years in the Senate might seem short, it could be just about right when combined with a career in the Assembly. The core problem is that the Assembly period is just too short. By lengthening the period one more term to a total of eight years, the proper balance can be achieved without risking the purpose of the two-chamber system. A person can serve for four two-year terms (eight years) in the Assembly, before attempting to run for the Senate and potentially serving eight additional years as a senior statesperson.

Unfortunately, this simple solution of extending the term limit by two more years in the Assembly will not be seriously considered because there isn't enough benefit in it for the current policy makers. This simply reinforces people's opinion of how things get done in Sacramento. Reform seems to move forward only if there is a direct benefit to those making the reforms.

Norm Kline is the director of the Democratic Forum of Silicon Valley and the former mayor of Saratoga.