What's wrong with Prop 93?

[RAD-CDPII]

It looks good, reducing term limits from 14 to 12 years, that's a good thing. I know they do not have to split it up between the two houses. But it's sponsered by Perata and Nunez??? You know those two slime balls are only looking out for their own a**! I confused on this one.

[M. Sage]

Because it resets the term limit counter at zero. All those politicians that are going to limit out this time around get to start over.

This isn't a feature of the law, but I've read on here that it's something that was hammered out in court. Ex-post-facto and all that.

Unfortunately, I'm sure they'll fool everybody and get another dozen years to screw us all over.

[Patriot]

Current incumbents can serve another 12 years irrespective of how many they've already served and whether they would have termed out under existing laws.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=82518

[RAD-CDPII]

Thanks for the quick replies, I just talked to my wife about this one, and she gave me the same answer. She's further ahead in reading the ballot info than I am. That's a big no on 93 for me. At least if it passes, I do not think that it will save Pistol Packin Perata though, the Feds will get him first.

[lawnrevenge]

prop 93 info taken from abc's website:

"I gotta tell you, Prop. 93 is election fraud," said Steve Poizner.
Steve Poizner, California's Insurance Commissioner, says Prop. 93 is a sneaky way for lawmakers to stay in office longer.
Remember that 14-year limit: Lawmakers could only do six years in the Assembly, and eight in the Senate.
Prop. 93 would cut it down to 12 years, but all 12 years could be served in either the Assembly or the Senate.
"If 93 passes, the Assembly terms will increase by 100 percent, terms in the Senate will increase by 50 percent and 42 termed-out legislators will get to stay in office rather than get termed out," said Poizner.
Frommer admits Prop. 93 will let several lawmakers stay longer, but he says that's what makes the proposition such a good idea: The people in charge of running our government, he says, will have more time to learn how to do it better.
"If you were running a multi-billion-dollar corporation, you wouldn't tell your top executives to leave after six or eight years," said Frommer. "You would want them to be there, and have the experience of running it."
So there you have it. Prop. 93 will give legislators more time in office -- by cutting their time in office.

[M5police]

The Feds will nail Perata or the Homies will...when they want to steal his 22" Dubs or Twomps....whatever they call them.

[AraiGuma]

It's always better to doubt whatever the Teachers Union backs up, IMHO.

[hoffmang]

This should be a big no vote for we pro-gunners.

In fact someday we may want to try to get term limits rolled back as I can tell you that they are actually hurting gun rights in California.

-Gene

[NIB]

Prop 93 is a scam plain and simple.

This was the concocted by Don Perata and Fabian Nunez so that they can stay in office and originally it did not have enough signatures to get on the ballot. However after a few phone calls from Nunez to a few Registrar recorders it suddenly came up with enough signatures to qualify.

Perata, Nunez and many other socialist, anti-gun political hacks will be termed out this year and next year but if this passes they will get to stay. Like was said....the term clock resets on all those that are ready to be termed out thus enabling them to serve another 12 years on top of how ever many years they have already served.

Vote No and you will effectively kick out of office Don Perata, Fabien Nunez, Gil Cedillio, and other whack job democrats.

http://stopprop93.com/

Spread the Word!

[dfletcher]

Since I'm not a fan of simple majority rule I always vote no on propositions. I think it is absolutely appling that we put to a simple statewide majority vote those issues that should be decided by elected officials - elected officials (at least in theory) who are accountable and can be replaced.

The ban on mountain lion hunting is an excellent example. Millions of people who live in SF, LA, SD & other big population areas - who will never see or be bothered by a mountain lion - got to vote for a state wide ban, while the folks who live in areas affected will deal with the result. This is an example of an issue that should have been decided by a state official, not popular vote.

Regarding the specific issue of term limits, is beyond me that someone in Yolo County should have had any say in who I can or can not vote for as my local rep or state senator; and that I could do the same to them. That's the practical effect of term limits - the guy (or girl) who I like, who has earned my vote and should gain seniority - is precluded by term limits from running again and I am effectively disenfranchised.

Term limits really are nothing more than treating the symptom of a disease and not cause.

[Rob P.]

Since I'm not a fan of simple majority rule I always vote no on propositions. I think it is absolutely appling that we put to a simple statewide majority vote those issues that should be decided by elected officials - elected officials (at least in theory) who are accountable and can be replaced.

The ban on mountain lion hunting is an excellent example. Millions of people who live in SF, LA, SD & other big population areas - who will never see or be bothered by a mountain lion - got to vote for a state wide ban, while the folks who live in areas affected will deal with the result. This is an example of an issue that should have been decided by a state official, not popular vote.

Regarding the specific issue of term limits, is beyond me that someone in Yolo County should have had any say in who I can or can not vote for as my local rep or state senator; and that I could do the same to them. That's the practical effect of term limits - the guy (or girl) who I like, who has earned my vote and should gain seniority - is precluded by term limits from running again and I am effectively disenfranchised.

Term limits really are nothing more than treating the symptom of a disease and not cause.

Actually not quite true. While it seems as if this would be the case (the "someone on Yolo" for example) the truth is, that a lot of career politicians were being kept in office due to Gerrymandered districts and apathetic voters. And THEY were the ones who voted for things like the Cal AW ban, ammo bans, the handgun list, microstamping, etc.

You know, things that affect you and me and our constitutional rights but we don't get a say in whether they get taken away or not. This is because long-term back-room insiders decide that if they vote "this way" on this bill, then everyone will vote "that way" on another bill which allows them extra perks (like staying in office) at the expense of the people they're supposed to serve.

And they can't be gotten rid of because even just half their district outnumbers EVERYONE else's district so the ballot box is effectively stuffed against the majority of the State. To reward their constituents who voted for them, they come up with wacky feel-good laws which punish the rest of the state while looking good to inner city residents. Like the lead ammo ban for condors.

Term limits are supposed to GET RID OF these jerkoffs. Now that they're at the end of their terms, they want to change it to get rid of the limit.

[Rob454]

Everything. You guys pretty much covered it. I personally am DISGUSTED with the current politicians no matter what party. i think they are all nothign but liars and thiefs. All you hear on the news is how these politicians are constantly getting caught dirty dealing.
But like always most will buy into the BS soem smooth talking politician spews out and by the time we realize they are really not doing anything they said they were gonna do OOOPS too late there goes another billion$.
But hey its ok people we'll just raise taxes.
Rob

[BigDogatPlay]

Prop 93 is a complete scam, an emphatic no vote should be cast.

I too believe that term limits might need a bit of tweaking, but giving the likes of Perata and Nunez another lease on legislative life is too much to bear. That they are both unfortunate enough to be termed out in what is, for California, an off year election with no statewide offices open for them to vault into is too bad and soooooooooooooooo sad.

[dfletcher]

I agree regarding the quality of the people in the legislature, their schemes to stay there and the district manipulation. I just don't agree the answer is to require the replacement of well seasoned weasels with inexperienced weasels.

If we had a legislature stacked with people like McClintock (I'm referencing his stance on gun issues) wouldn't we want to keep them on board and shouldn't I be allowed the continued opportunity to vote for him as my legislator?

If it's true these guys keep getting re-elected, how does putting in play the certainty they'll be out at a specific time help us? The current crop that can not run have no incentive to deal, no accountability or need to compromise. If a gun bill came up and a legislator who is middle of the road anti gun has to make a choice to support or deal - and he's up for re - election - maybe he curbs his anti gun bias a bit. If he's out the door he can do whatever he wants.

There may be another way to influence this and the restructure of districts seems the best approach. I wonder if a case can be made that the legislature should be taken out of the picture when it comes to drawing districts.

[Sgt Raven]

Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.
Mark Twain