• Listen to this segment

GUESTS: Richard Stapler, Communications Director for the “Yes on 93” campaign, Kevin Spillane, Communications Director for the “No on 93” Campaign

In our on-going coverage of California’s ballot propositions which voters will decide on next Tuesday, we’ll take a look at Proposition 93 regarding limits on legislators’ terms in office. The current terms are among the most stringent in the nation and were set by Proposition 140 that Californians passed in 1990. That measure allows California’s elected officials to serve up to 6 years in the Assembly and up to 8 years in the Senate, which is a maximum of 14 years in office. Proposition 93 on the February 5th ballot, reduces that maximum term from 14 to 12 years. But it allows legislators to serve all of those 12 years either in the Assembly, or in the Senate, or a combination of both. A ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 93 would change the terms limits while a ‘no’ vote would keep them as they are. Those who would benefit from Proposition 93 include Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, both of whom contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the “yes on 93” campaign. The measure would give Perata an extra four years and Nunez an extra six years in office. But proponents of the measure say it is necessary because legislators are often termed out just as they begin to get good at their jobs. Current poll results show that Californians are evenly split on Proposition 93.

For more information about the campaign for Prop 93, visit www.termlimitsreform.com, and for more information about the campaign against Prop 93, visit www.stopthepoliticians.com.