Proposition 93 is a term limit proposition. Again? Yeah. Again. Personally, I thought this is just another stupid proposition, but then I paid attention to the language:
- Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years.
- Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.
- Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.
Oh noes! What is Richard Alarcon going to do with is life? Jerry Brown? Cruz Bustamante? Oh wait, they won’t have to worry about anything because of that last bullet point.
So, what is this? Is it reducing the number of years a person can serve or does is it mean that career politicians get an additional 12 years on top of what ever they’ve already served after their latest term is up?
I can’t back this one. I’m not hep to having the same stale and selfish politicians up in Sacramento. I think career politicians are creepy. But seriously. If you’re going to do term limits, do it right. If that last bullet point wasn’t in there, this would almost be a good proposition.
Similar Posts:
- CALIFORNIA BALLOT: No on Prop. 92
- CALIFORNIA BALLOT: No on Prop. 91
- CALIFORNIA BALLOT: No on Prop. 97
- CALIFORNIA BALLOT: No on Prop. 94
- CALIFORNIA BALLOT: No on Prop. 95
The CALIFORNIA BALLOT: No on Prop. 93 by Anika Malone, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Tags: california ballot, feb. 5th, prop. 93