Nunez/Perata's Trojan Horse

[Diogenes]

Nice try, losers. Time to get a real job.


JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL


Bringing Lawmakers to Terms
California pols make a sneaky effort to extend their careers. Voters aren't buying it.
February 4, 2008
Ontario, Calif.

A giant 12-foot high Trojan Horse is touring dozens of California cities, trucked across the state by U.S. Term Limits. The group says the horse symbolizes the trickery behind Proposition 93, a measure on Tuesday's ballot that would allow many state legislators to bypass state term limits and hold onto their positions for years to come. It looks as if their educational effort is working. The latest statewide poll shows support for the measure slipping to just 33%, with 46% of voters opposed.

California voters have jealously guarded term limits since originally approving them back in 1990, with an initiative limiting members of the Assembly to three consecutive two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms. In 2002, voters rejected a measure that would have watered down these restrictions.

This year, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata, both Democrats, thought they had figured out how to loosen restrictions without paying a political price: They fashioned a "reform" ballot that they claim is more restrictive than the law currently imposed on politicians. It would limit the total number of years a legislator could serve to 12 years, down from 14 but allow all of those years to be served in one house of the legislature.

But the San Francisco Chronicle concluded that "the practical effect of the measure would be to allow more lawmakers . . . to stay in office longer," in part because a special "transition period" would allow dozens of current legislators to delay their departures. Most importantly, Messrs. Nunez and Perata would be allowed to stay until 2014 and 2012, respectively, instead of being forced to retire next year.

The initiative quickly scored a break from Attorney General Jerry Brown, who may want to build up political chits to run for governor in 2010. (He held that office from 1975 through 1983.) Mr. Brown's office prepared the summary of the initiative voters will see on their ballots. It stresses that the measure "reduces the total amount of time" a legislator serves while obscuring that it keeps current legislators in office longer.

For months, Proposition 93 enjoyed a lead in the polls, initially based on voter confusion over its real effect and then because of millions in ads backing the measure from business and labor interests. Last week, Ken McNeely, the president of AT&T California, emailed a letter to 40,000 of his employees urging them to support the measure. Cynics speculated that the letter was a payoff for Mr. Nunez's backing of a 2006 law that permits AT&T and other phone companies to compete against cable operators to offer pay television.

But despite some $17 million in special-interest money supporting the measure, it is now slipping in the polls as almost every major newspaper in the state has denounced its trickery. Frustrated with their falling support, the elected officials who were counting on Proposition 93 to extend their political careers have begun lashing out at one of the few individuals contributing big bucks to fight the measure.

That would be State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, the only statewide elected Republican other than Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor has appeared in ads supporting Proposition 93, but Mr. Poizner has broken with Mr. Schwarzenegger and has contributed $2.5 million from his personal funds against the measure. Last week, Mr. Poizner described to the Sacramento Bee "the threats I've received from legislative leaders about what they might do to my Department of Insurance because of my active involvement with the No on 93 campaign." He noted that his department's budget must win legislative approval.

"There have been direct and indirect threats that have been delivered to me, crystal clear, about be careful of what the Legislature can and will do to you if you continue to push so hard," Mr. Poizner told the Bee. He declined to name those who had actually threatened him, but said their warnings had been "delivered in a crystal clear way."

The office of Speaker Nunez is having none of this. "It's hogwash, complete hogwash," spokesman Steve Maviglio says. He insisted that relations between the two offices were cordial. "The only thing that Steve Poizner should be threatened by is the continuation of his reputation as a political lightweight who runs losing campaigns," Mr. Maviglio said later in a written statement.

Hmmm. That doesn't sound all that cordial to me. Let's just say that the best protection Mr. Poizner has right now is the fact that Messrs. Nunez and Perata will have to leave office later this year should Proposition 93 fail. That alone severely limits the damage they could do to his office, and represents yet another useful byproduct of term limits.

Proposition 93 looks to be going down to defeat, proving once again that while politicians are desperate to prolong their time in office as long as possible the voters appear equally determined to deny them any extension. And, at least in California, they will have the final word when the polls open tomorrow.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202059 ... ical_diary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;