Pros And Cons Of Proposition 28

Proposition 28 was passed on June 5, 2012 through the California initiative process. Proposition 28 was an initiative to amend the California Constitution. The change to the Constitution aims to reduce the amount of time a legislature can remain in the California legislature, but it would increase the total amount of time that a legislator could spend in one house to twelve years in total and it would only affect an legislators elected after June 5, 2012 (“In Depth” 2). The legislator could choose how the twelve years where spent, whether in just the Assembly, just the Senate, or any combination of the two. The legislators would still be subject to the same terms, but just the limits on them would increase. Any legislators elected on or before

The opposition was lead by Philip Blumel, President of U.S. Term Limits; Anita Anderson, Vice President of Parents in Charge Foundation; and Lew Uhler, President of National Tax Limitation Committee (Blumel, Anderson, and Uhler 3). In their argument against the proposition that was included in the California Voter Guide in 2012 all four leaders signed their names to the reasons why they believed that the proposition should not be passed. Most of it relied on the claim that it was written to purposefully deceive the voters into thinking that Proposition 28 would reduce legislator terms. They also talk about “career politicians” staying in office, rather than having citizen legislators, which is what most supporters of term limits, were aiming

And on top of that most of the lawsuits regarding term limits were solved when they were first introduced in 1990 with Proposition 140. When Proposition 140 was initially introduced term limits there was a lawsuit claiming that the lifetime ban was unconstitutional (“In Depth” 2). In Bates v. Jones legislators that stood to lose their seat in the upcoming election went to the courts to try to change the lifetime ban clause. It was ultimately declined and the law stayed as it was. If any new lawsuits were to come up regarding the continued lifetime ban, then that case would serve as precedent, and the ban would stay. It is highly unlikely though that any lawsuits would emerge from this adjustment to the