Term Limits Initiative Makes Ballot
Looks like a so- called term limits reform initiative has made the ballot, barely getting enough signatures to qualify. Some are accusing proponents of the initiative of skullduggery in validation of the signatures. I doubt they'll get anywhere if they end up taking their challenges further.
As for me, I've said here before I'm ambivalent about term limits and am not sure just how I'll vote on this one. I agree with some others that this initiative was dishonestly labeled by its sponsors, although I forget the exact details. One could argue that the initiative deserves defeat for the dishonest labeling alone.
Then there's also the fact that about the only beneficiaries of this bill are Senator Don Perata and Assemblyman Fabian Nunez, the authors of the initiative. They get an extra term in office if the initiative passes.
I suppose you can't blame them for being self- serving in trying to save their jobs, but it's tempting to vote no and see this initiative defeated if only to put them in their place.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:37 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Doesn't this also apply to Patty Berg?
I think in the long run it does, but for Nunez and Perata, them being in office longer, they would have been term limited out under the old rules. They get an extra term this way.
I think. I still find this confusing.
I won't vote for anything that keeps these career bums on the public trough.
Good bye Patty and the rest.
Locally we have two Harbor Commissioners that are working on being re-elected so they can complete 20 years in office. That's working out well.
Perata is the jerk who keeps introducing the bill to tax ammunition at 5 cents per round as well as other outrages.
We've got to good locals who need elected again. The crooks in Sacramento need to go to jail.
Term limits represent a patronizing attempt to save voters from themselves - premised on the notion that people aren't capable of making their own choices.
Uh - Eric - term limits are great. Get used to it.
How so? What differences have they made other than to ensure that rural areas receive less money than before?
In any case, term limits are supported by people with contempt for the voters. And the voters who voted for it obviously always voted for their own incumbents. They just thought everyone outside their own districts are stupid, and figure they needed some legislation to make the decisions for them.
Add it to the long list of "nanny state" legislation.
"And the voters who voted for it obviously always voted for their own incumbents.".
That's what gets me about the whole thing.
I think that voters electing incumbents isn't necessarily inconsistent with voting for term limits.
A big reason incumbents get reelected is that good challengers are dissuaded from running. Much more money is needed to run against an incumbent. So, without term limits, looking at the actual ballots, voters choose the lesser of evils rather than having the opportunity to vote for a candidate they can fully endorse.
Hank Simms, in this week's Journal, describes the musical chair strategy that HumCo politicians use to manage term limits.
Another game to consider.....
Wondering if it is worth it..
Only they can tell....
Eric you sound like an elitist shit. How dare you pay such contempt to "we the people". The majority voted for the term limits for the reasons set forth by 12:36.
Post a Comment
<< Home