BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SCA 20|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCA 20
Author: Perata (D), et al
Amended: 6/15/00
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS & REAP. COMMITTEE : 3-2, 5/17/00
AYES: Perata, Polanco, Murray
NOES: Poochigian, Lewis
SENATE CONST. AMENDMENTS COMMITTEE : 5-1, 5/24/00
AYES: Wright, Bowen, Burton, Kelley, O'Connell
NOES: Rainey
NOT VOTING: Sher
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-4, 6/7/00
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Kelley,
Perata, Vasconcellos
NOES: Johnson, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy
NOT VOTING: Karnette
SUBJECT : Elected officials: term limits
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill revises the number of years a senator
or a member of the Assembly may serve.
Senate Floor Amendments of 6/15/00 revise the previous
version by providing that a person may not serve for more
than 12 years as a member of the Assembly. Provides that a
person may not serve more than eight years in any statewide
CONTINUED
SCA 20
Page
2
office or the State Board of Equalization. These limits
would not apply to any unexpired term to which a person is
elected or apportioned, so long as they have not already
served their maximum allowable terms.
ANALYSIS : The California Constitution, pursuant to
Proposition 140 of 1990, provides that no Senator may serve
more than two terms and no member of the Assembly may serve
more than three terms. A partial term of less than
one-half a full term does not count toward the term limit.
Proposition 140 also provided that members of the State
Board of Equalization and all statewide elected
officeholders (e.g., Governor, Attorney General, etc.) may
not serve more than two terms.
Those provisions for legislative terms of office were
imposed by the passage of Proposition 140 of the 1990
general election. Subsequently, the California Supreme
Court clarified that term limits pursuant to Proposition
140 are lifetime limits ( Legislature v. Eu , 1991).
Furthermore, the Federal Courts have upheld the
constitutional validity of term limits for state office
holders ( Bates v. Jones , 131 F.3d 843).
Comments
The Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) recommended a
similar approach to term limits. In its 1996 final report,
the CRC recommended that members of both houses of the
Legislature serve three terms of four years each. The CRC
found that allowing longer term limits would increase the
stability and effectiveness of the Legislature, while
continuing to assure voters that members could not make
careers of legislative service. The CRC was concerned that
the current term limits do not allow enough time for
legislators to develop the expertise necessary to perform
their responsibilities effectively.
Prior Legislation
This constitutional amendment is similar to SCA 35 (Maddy)
of 1998, which was approved by the Senate but was defeated
in the Assembly policy committee. SCA 35 passed the Senate
with a vote of 27-7, as follows:
SCA 20
Page
3
AYES: Alpert, Ayala, Burton, Calderon, Costa, Dills,
Greene, Hayden, Hughes, Johnston, Kelley, Knight, Kopp,
Lewis, Lockyer, Maddy, McPherson, Mountjoy, O'Connell,
Polanco, Rosenthal, Sher, Solis, Thompson, Vasconcellos,
Watson, Wright
NOES: Brulte, Haynes, Hurtt, Johnson, Leslie, Monteith,
Rainey
NOT VOTING: Craven, Johannessen, Karnette, Peace, Schiff
ACA 21 (Papan) of 1998, failed passage on the Assembly
Floor.
Currently, ACA 2 (Papan) is pending on the Assembly Floor.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/16/00)
Consumer Federation of California
California Common Cause
California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Medical Association
California Nurses Association
California Professional Firefighters
Neighbor to Neighbor
California School Employees Association
California Retailers Association
Congress of California Seniors
League of Women Voters of California
Macy's West
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
R. William Hauck, Chairman (1994-1996)
California Constitution Revision Commission
Tony Miller, Attorney at Law
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/16/00)
U.S. Term Limits
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
SCA 20
Page
4
term limits has resulted in a number of positive outcomes
for the Legislature. There is greater diversity, an influx
of new ideas, and greater emphasis on the needs of local
government, as more local elected officials become state
officeholders. However, the length of each legislative
term under Proposition 140 has resulted in some drawbacks.
There isn't enough time under the current limits for any
individual legislator to develop the expertise necessary to
tackle the increasingly complex issues that affect the
state - education, water, transportation, and health care,
just to name a few. In short, Band-Aid solutions have
tended to prevail over long-term reform.
As experience among elected decreases, and legislators are
in constant pursuit of higher office, special interests
have more influence than ever. More than 700 new interest
groups have emerged since 1990, while lobbying expenditures
have increased by more than $100 million. The amount of
money spent on campaigns is at an all-time high.
It was for these reasons that the independent, bi-partisan
CRC in 1996 recommended the very change that this
constitutional amendment advocates.
The solution is not to remove term limits. Instead, it is
to create a balance between the experience and time needed
to accomplish the job the voters have given us, while
preventing the deadlock, abuse of power and lack of
accountability that unlimited terms support.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : A press release by the U.S.
Term Limits, an organization based in Washington, D.C.,
refers to an Orange County Register editorial opposing the
revision of term limits. The press release also refers new
statewide survey done by Diversified Research, Inc. showing
that California voters continue to support the 6-year limit
for the Assembly and an 8-year term limit for Senators.
DLW:cm 6/21/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
SCA 20
Page
5
**** END ****