(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

On June 5, California voters will decide whether to adopt new rules on term limits. Proposition 28 would reduce the total number of years lawmakers can serve in the Legislature, while also allowing them to serve out their term in one house. Supporters say it would increase government stability and preserve institutional knowledge. Critics say it will empower incumbents and keep new faces and ideas out of Sacramento.

Guests:
Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California
Steven Baric, vice chairman of the California Republican Party

  • Stuart

    Research has shown that choosing leaders randomly, without elections, which is how the ancient Greeks did it, actually works better because it removes the risk that unintelligent voters will make bad choices and elect the best manipulators instead of the best public servants. So long as leaders are chosen from a pool qualified people who have the necessary skills, the research shows it works better on average. Choosing from a random pool would also eliminate a large part of the lobbyist influence, since campaigns would not need funding. This practice is called sortition or drawing of lots.

  • James Ivey

    Term limits are stupid.  Why would a sane electorate limit the candidates that it can vote into office, especially to those without any experience?  We should be able to elect the best representatives, incumbent or otherwise.

  • Liz

    I get so tired of people complaining about the state government as if the Legislature all emerged from pods in a basement in Sacramento.  Let’s face it, we voted for them.  And, as George Carlin observed, “When you have selfish, lazy and ignorant voters, you are going to get selfish, lazy and ignorant politicians.”

  • Chemist150

    And who sponsored the term limit proposition?  Who’s trying to keep their position?

  • In the heavily Democratic state of CA, the r’s see term limits as a way to force Dems out of office so they can at least have a run at an office against a less experienced, less established candidate. 

    In this state, there are far more Dem officeholders that would be subject to being kicked out of office. I don’t see any reason to provide r’s with this advantage or opportunity. You can bet your hiney that if the situation were reversed, and r’s held the advantage in officeholding numbers, there would be no effort to term limit officeholders.  

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor