Proposition 45. Legislative Term Limits. Local Voter Petitions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Proposition 140, passed in 1990, imposed term limits on State Legislators (two four-year terms for State Senators and three two-year terms for State Assembly Members). Prop 45 allows State Legislators to serve (or at least run for office for) up to four more years, if a local petition gathers signatures at least equal to about 10% of the total voter population (20% of the total votes cast in the last election).

The Pro argument: "Protect term limits and Restore Decision Making to Local Voters". Term limits are good, but really good politicians are thrown out with the really bad ones. Prop 45 lets the local people decide to keep those really good politicians for another term. After 9/11, we need experienced politicians to guide us through these troubled times. The Con rebuttal is that politicians are behind Prop 45 which is one step in destroying term limits.

The Con argument is that Prop 45 kills term limits. Then it goes on to give a bit of history. How without term limits California was ruled by politicians that served for decades, stagnating state laws and policies. And then term limits were introduced and a shining new era arrived in California. Now there is new blood in the State Legislature and we are governed better than ever. The Pro rebuttal is that Prop 45 only extends maximum terms by four years, certainly a far cry from "killing term limits". Then they list some of the influential organizations supporting them.

So the first thing is do I agree with Term Limits? In general, no I do not. If the local people want to vote the same person in year after year, decade after decade, they should be able to do that. That said, Term Limits are now the law in California, so what does this Prop 45 really do? Well, it does require 20% signatures, much higher than the 5% and 8% for State Initiatives, for example. Once the politician is on the ballot, he will be re-elected because people tend to vote for the incumbent. So what does that say about Term Limits? Is it good because it forces people to actually think about who they're voting rather than automatically voting for the incumbent? Or do they vote for the party man and not give it another thought?

I don't really believe in Term Limits. But since it's the law I then think that Prop 45 does go against the spirit of Term Limits. It will give most incumbents another four years. 20% signatures is a fair amount but not all that insurmountable when it's 20% of a locality. Therefore, I have to vote no on Prop 45. If you want to repeal Term Limits, I'll vote yes for that. But Prop 45 is a bit of a sneaky round-about that I don't want to be any party of.

In the Primary Election, I'm only allowed to vote for candidates in my registered party. California has a few parties, though it's still down to Democrats and Republicans. There is the Reform Party with two candidates (for Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State). Based on their position statements these people are totally Right Wing. The Green Party has eight candidates. The Natural Law Party has six candidates, four of them women. I have no idea what these people stand for. It seems to be harmony with nature and foster communities.

Oh wait, here's the Political Party Statement of Purpose section of the Official Voter Information Guide. The Natural Law Party wants to apply the current best scientific principles to tackle social problems. Hmm, I don't think it's that simple, folks. The Libertarian Party has a rather vague statement of purpose. But I know that they're for less government and less government intrusion. Much less. The American Independent Party is the last minor political party. Looks like they're pro-Life, anti-foreigners, get rid of income tax and want the US to stop trying to lead the world. Hmm, looks like I'll stick with the two main parties when I'm looking for people to vote for.