How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008

My vote on Prop 93: Yes

This measure changes the length of time a person can serve in the state legislature (made up of the assembly and the senate). Right now, a person can serve in the assembly for 6 years max, and in the senate for 8 years max — for a combined 14 years. If Prop 93 passes, the total time a person could serve in the legislature would decrease, from 14 years to 12 years. However, the measure also would also allow a person to spend all of those 12 years in either the assembly or the senate.

The benefit’s that by allowing legislators to serve longer in a single position would give them experience and expertise while encouraging long-term thinking.

So why the opposition? The fight’s not over the term limits themselves, but over the transitional clause that lets some current legislators serve out 12 years in their current positions — even if that’d mean they exceed 14 years total in the legislature. This is a big sore point for people who really don’t like some of the legislators currently in office. The SF Chronicle’s no position on the measure, for example, sounds more like a diatribe against Núñez and Perata than a sound evaluation of the proposition going beyond this transitional period.

If these legislators are doing such a terrible job, I say work to vote them out before they serve out their full terms. Don’t reject a proposition just because it’ll benefit a couple people you don’t like. The California League of Conservation Voters are for Prop 93, as are the CA Dems. So am I.

Photo by Andreas Pagel

Comments