Proposition 28 would amend the State Constitution to allow future legislators to serve for a total of 12 years in either or both houses of the Legislature. An individual could serve up to six 2- year terms in the Assembly or three 4-year terms in the Senate or a combination of terms in both houses totaling 12 years.

History of Term Limits in California

In 1990, the voters passed Proposition 140 by a margin of 52%-48%. Prop. 140 amended the State Constitution to create term limits for members of the State Senate and State Assembly. An individual is limited to three 2-year terms in the Assembly and two 4-year terms in the Senate. An individual elected to both houses could therefore serve for a total of 14 years. An exception to this rule is when an individual also serves by finishing out less than half of the term of a person who left the Legislature, thus potentially increasing the lifetime limit to 17 years.

The constitutionality of Prop. 140 was challenged by termed-out Assemblyman Tom Bates and several of his constituents in a federal case entitled Bates v. Jones. Plaintiffs sought to have the court determine that the lifetime term limits in Proposition 140 violated their federal constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Prop. 140, and 26 members of the California State Legislature who had hoped to extend their stay in office were thus unable to file papers to run again for office in the November 1998 elections.

Prop. 45, a 2002 ballot measure, was defeated by a margin of 42%-58%. The authors of Prop. 45 sought to extend the terms that state legislators could serve by four additional years.

Prop. 93, a 2008 ballot measure, was defeated by a margin of 46.4%-53.6%. Prop. 93 would have reduced the total amount of time a person could serve to 12 years and allowed the person to serve the 12 years in one or both houses. Unlike the current Prop. 28, the proponents of Prop. 93 sought to apply the new limits to sitting members of the Legislature.

According to Mark Baldassare, CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, “Californians have steadfastly believed that legislative term limits are a good thing for California, even as policy experts disagree about their overall impact.” (March 7, 2012, Central Valley Business Times).

Some policy experts think that Prop. 140 did not produce the hoped-for citizen legislators. According to a report prepared by the Center for Governmental Studies “termed-out members are just as likely to seek other public-sector jobs as were pre-term limits predecessors.” (July 12, 2012, Capitol Journal, Los Angeles Times).

U.S. Term Limits

One of the opponents of Prop. 140 is the non-profit organization, U.S. Term Limits. Established in 1992, its goal is to implement term limits at every level of government. It worked to organize campaigns to place term limits on congressional delegations in 23 states. In 1995, state laws authorizing congressional term limits were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. Since the group began, term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, and 8 of the 10 largest American cities have adopted term limits for their city councils. (Ballotpedia)