California Proposition 28, Change in Term Limits (June 2012)
From Ballotpedia
| Term Limits | |
 | |
| Quick stats | |
| Type: | Constitutional amendment |
| Constitution: | Section 2 of Article IV |
| Referred by: | "Californians for a Fresh Start" group |
| Topic: | Term limits |
| Status: | On the ballot |
Contents |
Proposition 28, if voters approve it, will:
- Reduce the total number of years a politician can serve in the California State Legislature from 14 years to 12 years.
- Permit a legislator to serve these 12 years in either the California State Senate or the California State Assembly.
- The changes would not apply to any legislator who is already in office at the time that the initiative goes into effect (if it does go into effect); current legislator's terms would still be under the previous rules.
Election date
The initiative originally qualified for the February 5, 2012 ballot. In early 2011, there was a widespread belief that Jerry Brown would qualify a Tax Increase Proposition for the June or November 2011 ballot. If that had happened, the "Change in Term Limits" measure would have been moved onto that 2011 ballot.[1],[2]
Around the time it became clear that there would be no 2011 ballot proposition election, the California State Legislature also voted to terminate the February 5, 2012 election date. This moved the "Change in Term Limits" initiative to the June 5, 2012 ballot.
On October 7, 2011, Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill 202. SB 202 prohibits holding ballot proposition elections during June primaries. However, it applies only to ballot propositions that qualify on or after the date SB202 was signed.[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title:
Official summary:
Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Applies only to legislators first elected after the measure is passed. Provides that legislators elected before the measure is passed continue to be subject to existing term limits.
Summary of estimated fiscal impact:
No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.
Details
| California Constitution |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI VII • VIII • IX • X • XA XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C XX • XXI • XXII XXXIV • XXXV |
If this measure succeeds, it will amend Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution to replace the separate 8 and 6-year term limits on future State Senators and Assemblymembers, respectively, with a 12-year limit on combined service. Current and former Members of the California State Legislature would not be affected.
Support
The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce are sponsoring the measure and have named their group "Californians for a Fresh Start."[4]
Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federal of Labor AFL-CIO, is leading the ballot proposition effort. She also led a lobbying campaign to exempt Majestic Realty, a donor to the term limits campaign, from environmental regulations that would otherwise have applied to its proposed stadium in the City of Industry.[5]
Donors
- Majestic Realty, a sports venue developer, gave $300,000 to the group in December 2009. Newspapers reported that Majestic Realty's donation came two months after the California State Legislature exempted a Majestic Realty project from having to follow environmental laws.[5]
- The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor gave $150,000 in January 2010.[6]
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
The campaign to qualify the term limits measure for the ballot hired Kimball Petition Management to collect signatures. KPM received $1,424,087 for its work.[7]
Supporters of the initiative originally hoped that their measure would qualify for the November 2, 2010 ballot. However, after signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were submitted, it was determined by election officials that a random sampling technique would not be sufficient to determine whether enough signatures had been filed.
After California's Secretary of State announced in June that a full check of all signatures submitted to qualify the measure would be required, supporters acknowledged that this would push the measure's validation date past the June 24 deadline for certifying measures for the November 2 ballot.[8]
On October 8, 2009, Lance H. Olson of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title on the measure.
The Attorney General's office provided that title, and the measure was cleared for circulation with a circulation deadline of April 22, 2010. On April 22, supporters of the initiative submitted more than 1 million signatures to county election officials.[9]
Term limits in California
California voters imposed term limits on the California Legislature in 1990, when they voted in favor of Proposition 140 by a margin of 52-48%. Proposition 140 limits state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms, and imposes a lifelong ban against seeking the same office once the limits have been reached.
Bates v. Jones
In the case of Bates v. Jones, Bates--a termed-out Assemblyman--sued in federal court to have the provisions of Proposition 140 declared unconstitutional. A federal court agreed with his claim, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against him, keeping the limits in place.
Prop 45 in 2002
- Main article: California Proposition 45 (2002)
California State Senate president pro tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) vigorously sponsored an effort in 2002 to rollback the provisions of 1990's Proposition 140 by putting Proposition 45 on the March 2002 ballot. Voters rejected Proposition 45 by a margin of 42-58%. Had Proposition 45 passed, it would have allowed state legislators to serve for four years beyond the limits allowed by Proposition 140.
Prop 93 in 2008
- Main article: California Proposition 93 (2008)
Proposition 93, an initiated constitutional amendment supported by Don Perata was defeated 53.6% to 46.4% during the February 5, 2008 statewide primary election. Had it passed, members of the California State Legislature would have been allowed to remain in their current office up to 12 years.
See also
External links
- Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0048, Amdt. #1S)
- List of $5,000 and over donors
References
- ↑ Fresno Bee, "Term limits, tobacco tax could move to June special election", January 12, 2011
- ↑ Fox and Hounds Daily, "Cigarette Tax Initiative: More Ballot Box Budgeting", March 1, 2011
- ↑ "California Secretary of State", "Qualified Ballot Measures"
- ↑ Capitol Weekly, "Initiative backers submit paperwork promising a busy 2010 cycle", October 22, 2009
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Los Angeles Times, "After win in Sacramento, L.A. football stadium developer backs easing of term limits", December 30, 2009
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "LA labor federation digging deep to alter term limits", February 5, 2010
- ↑ Details of expenditures
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Term limits measure unlikely to make November ballot deadline", June 16, 2010
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Ballot measure to alter terms limits turns in 1 million signatures", April 22, 2010
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
This California-related article is a stub. You can help people learn about California politics by expanding it. |
