Term limits for elected officials State, National, International, posted by Pete, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 7:06 am
This is kind of interesting but it alarms me that the elected officials are deciding this themselves. I believe we should have a ballot initiative to be decided by the voters as to how long they can serve. I believe no more than 6 years total as in most cases their performance is pathetic.
Posted by Unemployed, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 9:29 am
I believe if the politicians who are honest and truly represent the people should come to the correct resolution - term limit. If they cannot do so, then we should vote it as a referendum. We should not waste taxpayer dollars with so many referendums. Save the $'s for education and/or healthcare. Enough money wasted on these political stuff.
Posted by J, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 9:33 am
We already voted term limits into effect. Almost every chance they get, our elected officials waste time trying to overturn what we voted into being, or extend the length of their term claiming that the current terms do not allow them time to be effective in their role
"California voters imposed strict 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. Proposition 140 still governs how long members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate can stay in office, although there have been repeated attempts to rollback, soften or have Prop 140 declared unconstitutional."
Posted by J, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 9:40 am
In the case of Bates v. Jones, former California Assemblyman Tom Bates and several of his constituents filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to have the court determine that the lifetime term limits in Prop. 140 violated their federal constitutional rights.
District Court Judge Claudia Wilken upheld the claim of Bates and enjoined California Secretary of State Bill Jones from enforcing the provisions of Proposition 140.[3] In Wilken's ruling, she agrees with the view of the plaintiffs that the voters were unaware that they were imposin a lifetime ban once the limits had been reached.
The National Tax Limitation Committee and Bill Jones appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge panel heard the appeal. Two of them upheld Wilken's ruling. At that time, a majority of the active judges of the Ninth Circuit vote to rehear the case. When the case was re-heard before the full circuit, Wilken's earlier verdict was overturned and the law went into effect.[4]
Posted by J, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 11:45 am
I'm all in favor of totally revamping how the House and Senate do business.
For starters, they can tighten their belts and put their staffs on the same furloughs that other govt offices within their districts are operating under. I'm also interested in the travel expenses they are allowed... How much of that travel do they do by choice, and how much is actually in performance of their elected duties?
Posted by J, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Am I being followed from post to post to pick fights?
"unclehomerr",
In case you didn't notice in your haste to attack, I did not make the intial post on this subject. I simply pointed out to the author that the state already voted in Prop 140, establishing term limits, several years ago. I was not certain if he was implying that needed to be reformed or if he was getting at a need for similar legislation at a federal level
To Pete-
I agree that something needs to be done. It is an almost overwhelming task to decide where or how. All that term limits has done is assure that the same people who were termed out, run for a different office, not that they go back to a regular 9-5 job
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2009 at 9:45 pm
We have always had tern limits called elections. What legislated term limits have done for Californians is allow office holders to only deal with the short term. Do you know we again borrowed to balance the budget? No new taxes but we now have more debt. When we continue this in years to come we can blame it on the then new legislators who had no hand in creating this mess.
Posted by Carmine, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2009 at 8:59 am
We already have term limits. I believe what is needed now is to get rid of the full-time legislature in Sacramento. Full-time legislatures (and Congress) have professional politicians as members. Being a legislator, along with the graft and corruption associated with that type of system, is what provides their income. Many states have part-time legislatures and are much better run. Texas is one of them. The Texas legislature is typically in session for two months EVERY OTHER YEAR, and Texas is fiscally much better run than California. The reason is the legislators are not professional politicians - they earn their livlihoods by other means. They are also much more in tune with the real world, and don't spend their entire careers on the public tab. Things get done quickly because they are in session for a short time. The old saying that the amount of time it takes to do something generally expands to fill he time available is very true. And in Texas the lobbyists only have about 1/12th as much opportunity to be lobbying the legislators, and the legislators only have 1/12th as much time to be living high-on-the-hog at taxpayer's expense.
Posted by Ken in South Pleasanton, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2009 at 9:34 am
I fully support the idea of legally imposed term limits, however, I'm even more in favor of voter-imposed term limits at each election. If the legislature is not doing what it was hired to do, then we should fire them at the next electoral opportunity. The next election is our first opportunity to express our dissatisfaction with our legislature. If we fail to do this, and return incumbants to their cushy chairs in Sacramento, we basically send our approval of their performance. From what I've read and what I've heard in conversations, not many Californians are pleased with how our state government is run. Take control, vote them out!
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
