California Government - Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office - Coursework Example

First name] [Last Name] POSC Initiative Paper Word Count: [1500] Proposition 28 of 2012 [Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office] Initiative Background The first initiative that emerged in 2011 was based on the need to redefine the elected leaders' terms and periodically in legislative offices. In this case, the initiative was based on the need to reduce the served years from a total 14 to a total 12. Initially, the Carolina State allowed leaders to serve in the State Assembly and Senate for a total of 14 years (Bruce and Thad, 2004). In this case, leaders could serve for 3, two-year terms in the State Assembly and 2, four-year terms in the State Senate. In this case, the initiative sought to reduce the period to 14 years, through the elimination of the State Assembly 3 term limit to allow for up to 6 terms as well as up to 3 terms of service in the State Senate. However, in order to ensure equity and transparency in the regulation enactment, the initiative argued that all the serving leaders in both the State Senate and Assembly terms could be subject to the existing regulations. As an article on the Ballot Pedia (para 5-11) argued, the initiative was based on the need to increase leader's accountability and focus on service delivery to their constituents. This was rather than their focus on seeking lobby groups to support their ambitions of serving different constituents upon term expiry. Proponents and Opponents Among the most vocal opponents of the initiative was the Republican part California branch. In this case, the party, through its vice-chair person Jon Fleischman criticized the initiative right from its inception to its passing. In this case, the Vice-Chairperson noted that the initiative title was a sham. In this case, he noted that although it was named as a limit on the Legislators terms in office, the truth was the reverse. In this case, the opponents argued that, contrary to the existing situation where the State Assemble members served for a maximum 6 years, the new initiative would include that term limit up to 12 years (“US Term Limits” para 6). Similarly, it would include the term limit from 8 to up to a possible 12 years in the State Senate. Therefore, they argued that it failed to showcase the truth to the public. This assertion of the initiative was asserted through a study undertaken by the Citizens in Charge Foundation led by Michael Foudy. In this regard, the pools established and argued that after explaining the actual initiative contents, and he asserted argument that it would indeed increase the legislators' terms of service, a margin of two to one opposed the initiative. As such, a bottom line argument developed by the opponents was the assertion that the initiative was misrepresented and failed to achieve its argued deliverable objectives (Jacob Para 2). Nevertheless, the initiative had its proponents mainly from the lobby labor groups and the average citizen groups. In this case organizations such as California common cause led by Kathy Feng and the League of Women Voters California led by Waggoner. Proposed the initiative. In this case, the groups argued that the reduction of the service years would serve essentially through the elimination of the term valuation aspect to the years served (League of Women Voters of California para 3). As such, legislators who served for half term, which were initially not counted as served could be reduced through the introduction of a year's evaluation process. As such, they argued that the introduction of the regulations would streamline the California legislative system. The Implementation Process and Expected Challenges The initiative implementation is based on the fundamental change of the State Constitution. In this case, the initiative passing repealed the State constitution section 2 and especially through the introduction of article 4 that excluded members already serving their terms in either of the houses. As such, the constitutional change was the key turning point in the State regulations on governance and legislation. However, the initiative is yet to be effective as the first affected group of legislators. Due to its constitutional nature, and the direct implication of changing the Constitution, the initiative is expected to generate little resistance from the government as the various State government organs lack control of effect over it. One of the key organs expected to implement the initiative is the Secretary of State Department. In this regard, although the constitution was changed and amended, its actualization requires the development of relevant regulations. One of the regulations expected to be developed under the support of the initiative is the term’s limitations law for circulation to the speakers of both the State Senate and State Assembly for execution. As such, the electoral commission in the State is expected to execute these regulations. In this regard, the electoral commission is expected to ensure that there is a swift transition between the current legislators and those elected under the new order. In addition, the Office of the Attorney General California State will be a critical component of ensuring the initiative integration with the constitution. In this case, the office will ensure the evaluation of any contradicting regulations in the State legislative system. As such, this will ensure that the initiative execution will be flawless and exceedingly succeeds over the transition period until a time when all serving legislators will be subject to a total 12 years of service counted in terms of years served, rather than actually full terms served in either the State Senate or Assembly or at both. The double edge rule between the current and expected future leaders is likely to result in a challenge in the future. In this case, it is expected that the electoral commission will be faced with the challenges of managing double records for existing and future legislators over the next 12 years. In this case, confusion and causes of corruption and dishonesty could arise in a means to bribe the officials into navigating between the two regulations which will instead of realizing the proposed initiative gains, expose the California State official and voters to increased lobby group challenges. On the other hand, an additional initiative implementation challenge is expected to arise from the courts. Historically, the USA federal supreme courts, has overturned numerous regulations and initiative in the California State. Among them was the Marriage initiative passed in the State to disown and illegalize same-sex marriages, which the Federal Court as contravening the constitution (Peralta para 5). Therefore, the likelihood of courts overruling the initiative based on allegations of Attorney General partisan approach cannot be overlooked. As such, with the higher criticism of the Republican Party, it is expected that the matter could be raised in the courts. In this case, the Republican Party, the California State branch could move to court as a means of opposing the State Attorney General perceived partisan approach on the initiative. In this regard, the assertion that the initiative title was misguided could be the major legal concern. Therefore, in the event that the courts find the title was misleading, this would mean that the whole process would be nullified and a repeat initiative conducted with a fair and balanced title that could present a fair and reliable information base to the public adopted. On the other hand, although the legal process could be lengthy and may eventually lead to the upholding of the initiative, it could initiate staying orders for the initiative execution. As a result, such a stay would imply the continued following and application of the pre-existing legislative term limits in the California State. Therefore, this analysis establishes that although the initiative was passed and has since effected constitutional changes, its application and successful integration in the State legislative system is subject to various legal and executions. Thus, the technical hurdles must be overcome and due diligence and care undertaken in the transition period of over ten years, where legislators serving in both houses will be under the old and new constitutional orders respectively. Individual Opinion on Direct Democracy The application of direct democracy is a good initiative and approach for the California State residents. In this case, throughout the semester I have learnt that since its inception over 100 years ago, the initiative has enabled the residents deliver their will over the self-interests of the elected politicians. Therefore, as Goebel (24) argued, although the process of direct democracy has its share of challenges, such as the use of the initiative process to perpetuate self and specific group’s interest, its benefits cannot be overlooked. In this case, I personally believe that the adoption and application of direct democracy is a critical supplementary pillar for indirect democracy as a measure and tool to ensuring that those elected under the indirect democracy remain focused on developing and improving their electorate welfare. As such, this is a process through which transparency and accountability are facilitated. In this context, leaders, for the fear of a public initiative, ensure that hey remain focused on service delivery as per the community expectations. Finally, the process ensures that the voice of the few, who are often left out in the process of indirect democracy, that is based on majority democracy rules, are also heard and their interests catered for as well. Therefore, I support the process, although changes to streamline the direct democratic rules of engagement need to be developed. In this regulation should be developed to develop a system through which the initiatives approval threshold should be raised to ensure the representation of various interest groups rather than just the approval based on its serving single interest groups and the meeting of the registered voter signature threshold. Through such regulations, the State of California would ensure that the process is not unduly used to propel or safeguard individual personal interests. Works Cited Ballot Pedia. (June, 2012). California Proposition 28, Change in Term Limits (June 2012). Author. Retrieved from http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_28,_Change_in_Term_Limits_%28June_2012%29 Bruce E. and Thad K (2004). Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions.Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf Goebel, T. (2002). A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Jacob, P., (April 10, 2012). Poll shows Prop 28 tricks CA voters, Citizens in Charge. Retrieved from http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/paul/poll-shows-prop-28-tricks-ca-voters League of Women Voters of California. (2015). California Term Limits. Author. Retrieved from http://lwvc.org/issues/california-term-limits Peralta, E., (June 26, 2013). Court Overturns DOMA, Sidesteps Broad Gay Marriage Ruling, the Two-way. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/26/195857796/supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act US Term Limits. (2015). State Legislative Term Limits. Author. Retrieved from https://www.termlimits.org/term-limits/state-term-limits/state-legislative-term-limits/ Read More