In gay marriage decision, did Supremes inadvertently empower pols?

Even those who cheered the result of the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision regarding gay marriage should be concerned about how the court reached it.

Recall that in 2008 California voters passed Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in that state. In 2010, a district court ruled the amendment unconstitutional. Normally, the state would appeal on behalf of its voter-approved law, but in this case California's governor and attorney general agreed with the district court decision and refused to appeal.

Prop. 8 supporters did their day in court, though. The California Supreme Court allowed them to make their case in federal court instead. But when the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the Prop. 8 supporters had no standing and tossed it out.

So what, you ask? This: The court appears to have handed a veto power over initiatives they don't like by refusing to defend them in court. So opponents can get a friendly judge and it's game over for voters.

California voters aren't outraged about this as the consensus on gay marriage has shifted since the original vote five years ago. But technically the Supreme Court didn't even rule on this issue. The issue was standing, and the voters didn't have it.

The purpose of the initiative process is to provide citizens with a way to make an end run around politicians when they are not doing the people's business. This is something the term limits movement has made the most of. Rarely do legislatures adopt term limits; more often they pull out all stops in opposing them.

Some fear the June decision gives politicians one more weapon against citizens who want to limit their power. Stay tuned.

Vote NO on Prop. 28, California's anti-term limits SCAM

In 1990, California voters passed term limits on their legislators. As in other states, California politicians have been trying to get rid of them ever since.

But in California, their attempts are grander because the prize is bigger: California has the highest-paid legislature and being a legislator is a full-time, year-round job. Plus, it is a large, wealthy state with out-sized special interests that spend freely to achieve their goals and share their largess with the politicians that serve them. The system is tailor-made for ambitious political careerists, except for those pesky term limits!

In the first attempt to kill term limits in 2002, the ballot measure was pretty straight-forward and the voters squashed it. The politicians and lobbyists learned their lesson – voters love term limits! -- and in 2008 came up with a deceptive ballot measure and spent $18 million to promote it. But the voters saw through the ruse and squashed it again.

Now, on the June 2012 ballot, politicians are back with an initiative so deceptive that many – I fear most – Californians will vote YES, believing that the initiative actually strengthens California term limits. It doesn’t.

The scam lies in the ballot title:

LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows 12 years' service in one house. Applies only to legislators first elected after measure is passed. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

Clearly, Proposition 28 is designed to trick voters into thinking it strengthens terms limits when it does the exact opposite. We have to get the word out quick!

Here’s what you need to know about this scam initiative:

1) Proposition 28 allows politicians to be in the California State Assembly for 12 years -- not the 6-year maximum permitted under current law. That means members of the state assembly will actually have THEIR TIME IN OFFICE DOUBLED -- NOT REDUCED!

2) Proposition 28 also allows politicians to be in the California State Senate for 12 years - not the 8-year maximum permitted under current law. That means members of the State Senate will actually have THEIR TIME IN OFFICE INCREASED BY 50% -- NOT REDUCED.

3) Sure, the overall service in the legislature might be, ahem, ‘reduced’ for a handful of house-jumping politicians by two years, about 8% historically by our count. But so what? Jumping from one house to the other is not automatic like running for one’s own seat. The politician has to win a competitive open seat election in a differently configured district, often against another term-limited politician. This is exactly what the politicians are desperately trying to avoid. With this amendment, over 80% of politicians will have their terms lengthened, not shortened. That is exactly what the politicians are after.

4) Proposition 28's top backer is corrupt developer Ed Roski Jr. who sought a special exemption from environmental regulations by the legislature -- at the exact same time he was paying to qualify this initiative -- so that he could make millions by building a sports stadium. See the full story here.

5) In 2008, one reason the anti-term limits initiative failed because the terms limits were weakened for current incumbents, which voters correctly saw as a egregious conflict of interest. In this scam initiative, politicians claim the new, weaker limits apply only to newly elected legislators. This is perhaps the most insidious aspect of the scam. It would create two classes of legislators with different term limits. They know this will not stand up in court. We can expect an immediate challenge by incumbents and the incumbent politicians expect to win in the court what they can't win honestly at the ballot box, weaker term limits.

Friends, this is an elaborate and insidious scam. Please send a link to this article as well as the official anti-Prop28 site www.28no.org to every Californian you know. Post it to Facebook, Twitter, everywhere.

The politicians can’t win if the people get the truth in time. It is up to us to see they do.

Ed Roski Jr.: A California case study in soft corruption

According to the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 30, “Ed Roski Jr., the L.A. County billionaire who got state legislators to exempt his proposed NFL stadium from environmental laws, has showered the lawmakers with tens of thousands of dollars in campaign cash… The money is part of $505,000 that Roski put into California political campaigns during the second half of 2009, including $300,000 toward a proposed ballot measure that would change term limits.”

That's called payback.

This legal bribe is being offered as California politicians are once again raising cash for a referendum effort to overturn or weaken term limits in California. In their last financial disclosure report, the petition effort reports raising about $485,000, a full $300,000 of it from Roski. The rest is from other special interests with pending business before the legislature including the LA County Federation of Labor, LA Jobs PAC, O'Melveny & Myers trial lawyers PAC, a police union and the BNSF Railway Co.

This will be the third time Californians will be asked to vote on term limits since the voters originally passed them back in 1990. In both 2002 and 2008, the voters rebuffed the politicians.

Money isn't enough by itself. In both of those previous efforts, the anti-term limits forces raised and spend some 10 times as much much as the term limits supporters.

So, they've dusted off and tweaked a gimmick in order to trick the people into voting for it. In California, the lower house is limited to six years and the upper house, eight. That is, you could serve in one and then the other for a total of 14 years total. The new proposal to weaken term limits will increase the number of years to 12 in each house, but limit politicians to a total of 12 overall. They are going to claim that their proposal actually strengthens the term limits law, as it reduces total service to 12 years from 14. You have to admit: it may be arrogant and deceptive, but it is clever.

Greased with enough cash and enough obfuscation, the politicians and lobbies think the third time might be the charm. They've already squandered tens of millions of dollars in their quest to retain power but their purse keeps growing because they have the favors to grant. In a state with a 12%-plus unemployment rate, the jobs they're fighting the hardest to keep are their own.

Schwarzenegger and those 'crazy' term limits

Term limits activism is empowering and often thrilling, but there are some repetitive aspects of it that just get downright tedious. Number one on the list is the phenomenon of the politician who runs for office calling for term limits, becomes part of the power structure, and then turns his or her back on term limits and the voters who love them.

Take California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Referring to former state Sen. Jack Scott, the governor recently opined that he “was termed out because we have these crazy term limits here in California and people that are that experienced like him then have to leave and move on.”

No. What’s crazy is thinking that out of 36.7 million people, only the elite political class of individuals are “experienced” enough to hold public office.

In 2003, as a candidate, Arnold Schwarzenegger said: “My campaign for governor is based on the concept that California's state government belongs to the people, not the career politicians. As we are now seeing with the state's budget crisis and anti-business policies, it is too easy for the politicians to become disconnected from the people they are supposed to represent. That is why I believe in citizen legislators and yes, even citizen governors. It is also why I am such a strong believer in term limits.”

Funny what a few years in public office does to a politician. In 2008, Schwarzenegger turned against term limits and sided with the political establishment when he endorsed Proposition 93, a ballot measure that, had it not been defeated, would have weakened term limits.

What logic is there in rewarding the very legislators that are leading the state to the brink by extending their terms to allow them to 'serve' more?

In fact, logic requires that we move the opposite direction. California has the highest paid legislators in the country and they work all year 'round. The careerist impulse may have been tempered in California by term limits, but it is not enough. The perks of power are just too sweet for California pols who will clearly do anything to keep their cozy jobs.

Instead, we get claims that are truly crazy: thinking that the political establishment just needs more time to fix the very problems for which its own antics are so glaringly responsible.

Schwarzenegger knew better in 2003. The people of California know better in 2009. And they assuredly will defeat SCA 24—yet another proposed constitutional amendment to weaken term limits—in 2010.

(See my op-ed on this subject in the Oct. 31 edition of the L.A. Times.)

Term Limits Win Everywhere Nov. 4

NOV. 4, 2008 -- Here’s a complete list of term limits votes around the nation that I know about. If I forgot any, please let me know.

South Dakota (J) – repeals term limits on state legislature.
YES: 87,361 (24.27%)
NO: 272,551 (75.73%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

Memphis, TN – Places a maximum of two terms on the city council, mayor and other constitutional offices.
YES: 177,571 (78.23%) TERM LIMITS WIN!
NO: 49,420 (21.77%)

Shelby County, TN (365) – Places term limits on various city charteroffices to match limits on county commission and mayor
YES: 273,107 (78.59%) TERM LIMITS WIN!
NO: 74,409 (21.41%)

San Antonio, TX (1) – Extends term limits for city council
YES: 190,417 (51.6%) TERM LIMITS EXTENDED FROM 4 TO 8 YEARS
NO: 178,611 (48.4%)

Tracy, CA (T) – Places a 2 four-year term limit on the city council and mayor
YES: 12,613 (67.21%) TERM LIMITS WIN!
NO: 6,154 (32.79%)

Rowlett, TX — extends term limit from two to three terms.
YES: 8,953 (44%)
NO: 11,295 (56%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

State College Borough, PA — repeals term limits for borough council.
YES: 8,050 (46%)
NO: 9,567 (54%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

Louisiana — statewide referendum to limit terms on a long list ofboards and commissions.
YES: 1,129,711 (69%) TERM LIMITS WIN!
NO: 497,205 (31%)

Daytona Beach Shores, FL -- Measure to repeal 8-year term limits
YES: 36%
NO: 64% TERM LIMITS WIN!

North Miami, FL -- Eliminate term limits for mayor
YES: 5,280 (33%)
NO: 10,693 (67%) TERM LIMITS WIN!

Ventura County, CA -- limits county supervisors to 12 years in office
YES: 77% TERM LIMITS WIN!
NO: 23%

Lynwood, CA -- limits city council members to two terms in office
YES: 75% TERM LIMITS WIN!
NO: 25%

Pinole, CA -- limits city council members to three terms in office
YES: 73% TERM LIMITS WIN!
NO: 27%

Leadville, CO -- repeal of county commission term limits
YES: 30%
NO: 70% TERM LIMITS WIN!

Ferguson Township, PA -- repeal of two-term limit on township supervisors
YES: 38%
NO: 62% TERM LIMITS WIN! (only 7 of 8 precincts counted)