Dysfunction reigns in California politics. The Golden State’s plagued by constant fiscal tribulations, leading to huge cuts to services and education.
The legislature just can’t seem to rectify the situation. Some in the state think that part of the problem is that legislature’s terms are still too long, so they have proposed further shortening them.
Prop. 28, which is on the June ballot in California, would amend the California constitution to reduce legislators’ time to 12 years from 14. Legislators would be able to spend it all in one house or a combination of houses.
Currently, Assembly members can serve up to three two-year terms and Senate members can serve two four-year terms.
These term limits may seem like sensible limits on legislative power, but they are actually detrimental to California politics.
The debate over term limits harks back to the disagreements between the anti-federalists and the federalists during the framing of the U.S. Constitution.
The anti-federalists were worried about a corrupt legislature, so they thought that limiting the amount of time politicians could spend in the legislature would diminish the chances of these politicians becoming corrupt and detached from the people they represent.
They failed to consider that corrupt politics can be a product of corrupt people, no matter the time served in office.
Conversely, the federalists realized that in order to effectively
legislate, legislators needed political experience.
The intricacies of the legislative process and political issues require extensive knowledge and practice, none of which can be gained in a short period.
Yet in California people seem to expect the legislature–which is naturally a deliberative body–to correctly assess the issues and pass legislation when they have to start campaigning for reelection after barely beginning their terms.
A 2011 study highlighted by commentator George Skelton confirmed this when it was discovered that when compared to legislators unhampered by term limits, today’s legislators have less experience and knowledge of political issues, which breeds dependence on staff members and lobbyists.
This dependence on lobbyists necessitated by term limits is troubling for the state. Because politicians have barely any time to learn their trade, they inevitably rely on lobbyists to teach them about the process and the issues.
Lobbyists, many of whom have been in office, often have more experience than these legislators. These lobbyists have great sway over the political process.
Even without term limits lobbyists exert great influence over politicians, but when these legislators have barely any knowledge or political experience, the lobbyists have even greater influence and power.
Another consequence of term limits, and the inevitable reliance on lobbyists that it engenders, is a reduction in accountability.
With almost constant legislative turnover, it’s difficult for the public to assess legislators’ performance and hold them accountable for policies.
As Publius forcefully argued in the Federalist Papers, it’s difficult to gauge the effectiveness of a policy in a short period.
Furthermore, the federalists argued that it’s easier to hold politicians accountable when they have longer terms because people have enough time to assess the policy as it’s been fully implemented.
So, if voters want their legislators to be more effective, accountable, and less reliant on lobbyists, they should focus on issues actually contributing to the political madness in California. They should not worry about frivolous mechanisms like term limits.
Leonardo Poareo is a senior journalism major and a contributing writer for the Daily 49er.
