UCLA California Policy Options Title The State of California Politics Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2vf4g4x2 Author Kayden, Xandra Publication Date 1998 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA POLITICS Xandra Kayden Much of California's political structure has been crafted by initiative in recent years, and most of it is in the hands of the courts. No one is confident of what will happen. Awaiting judicial decision are term limits, campaign fmance regulation, and the open primary: There are many possibilities --and many odds-takers --but uncertainty will be the most characteristic quality of the coming political year. For those who like their politics to be full of unexpected twists and turns, 1998 could be a very interesting year. "Handicapping the shape of the legislature is usually like a regular chess game," a Sacramento lobbyist noted. "Now, it's like a three-dimensional chess game, wondering what will happen with all 20 senateseats, and probably 30 assemblyseats." Term Limits Proposition 140, which was passed in 1992, limited the terms of the state legislative offices to 3 two-year terms for the Assembly, and 2 four-year terms for the Senate. Suit was brought against it immediately in the California courts, which supported it, but later in the federal courts, it was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Claudia Wilkin. She allowed the current limits to stand while it is appealed up the line to the 9th District Court of Appeals. The District court is one of the most liberal in the country. Three judges heard the appeal for the 9thDistrict and held the law unconstitutional becausethe voters were not told that the law included a lifetime ban on holding the same office again. And they lifted the stay. Observers believe the case was decided on the narrow question of what the voters knew to protect it from being taken up by the SupremeCourt. Instead, the case went to the full 9thDistrict en banc, and-at this writing-the stay has been re-imposed. Everyone in elected politics is waiting for one shoe or anotherto drop. If the stay is lifted, and if the law is over-turned, it will have a domino effect on many candidates now running for office. As one astute political observer put it, "If term limits are ruled out, it will be like trying to put the tooth paste back into the tube." Some incumbents will chose to stay where they are, and some will be forced to stay becausethe open seats they thought were going to be above them on the electoral ladder will be taken. Some will run anyway, but they will face other uncertainties in fund raising and, possibly, even in the primary electoral contest. If the limits are lifted, the California legislature is likely to be dominated for some years by those now in office, most of whom have relatively little experience now. On the other hand, if the limits are lifted, experience is the one thing they will have. If tenn limits are upheld, the rush will be on as one class after another is tenned out of office, but one lesson we have learned about tenn limits is that they almost 11 I always guarantee that those in office will serve the full measure of their terms while potential challengers wait them out. It is Usually easier to run for an open seat when the odds are significantly better. Incumbent advantage is, and always was, a very powerful force becauseof the higher name recognition an incumbent has and, and now particularly, because of the greater easean incumbent will have raising money to mount a campaign, given the new strict contribution limits of the campaign law currently in effect. One of the clearestexamples of those who would rather stay where they are, for instance, is DemocratBill Lockyer, the powerful presidentpro tempore of the State Senate. If term limits are upheld,he will run for state attorneygeneral. If they are not upheld, he will clearly be the most powerful man on the legislative side of state government,and that is a position few would like to give up. The tremendousuncertainty makesthe probability that others will challengethe current leadershipnow less likely than it might have beenbecause it takesa seriouscampaign to put the votestogether for a challengeand few arewilling to spendthe time andenergy it do it at this point. Although there are likely to be a numberof challengesto the leadershipin both partiesif the limits are lifted or thrown out entirel~. The Political Balance Another complication is the timing. Democrats could lose a couple of seatsin close districts if the term limits stand in 1998 but, in the 2009 election, Republicans are much more vulnerable becausethey have more incumbents who will be termed out of office. If they lose most --or even some of those seats --the G.O.P. risks longer term cuts because of the redistricting that will occur following the 2000 census. Gerrymandering to protect incumbents has always been a highly regarded art form in California, and it will be an even clearer cut game in 1998 becausethe governor's seat will be open. At this writing in the fall, the top two potential Democratic contenders (U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis) beat the top Republican contender Attorney General Dan Lungren in the polls). Lungren, in fact, has never been in the lead in the polls, although there are no overwhelmingly strong contenders within the G.O.P. to threaten his nomination. Effect to Date In the meantime, it is fair to ask whether or not the term limits already applied have helped or hurt the legislative process. The argument against term limits is that. it leaves us with a government of amateurs. Many Californians, of course, like that idea. Term limits are designed to do away with the professional politician and all the negatives that implies. On the eve of last year's election, however, many were predicting --considering no one in the state legislature will have held his or her job for more than four years -- greater partisanship, confusion, and greater benefits to those who did know the rules: particularly lobbyists. 12 .. Observers feared the increase in partisanship would come because newly-elected legislators would not know whom to trust and in their uncertainty, would rely on the party caucus for guidance. That may be true, but lobbyists --who were always expected to gain more influence in such a situation -are, in fact, also beginning to come into their own. Even so, they, at least, know the rules and understandthe process. Another theory about increasedpartisanship is basedon the nature of "marginal" seats-those whosevoters are so balancedbetween the parties they could swing either way. The theory being espousedin California is that marginal incumbentsmust rely more on their party than safe incumbentsbecause they are more dependenton party backing for their re-electioncampaigns than incumbentswho have held office for many yearsand have built up personalties in their districts. This theoryof the consequencesof marginality runs counterto the traditional theory that marginalincumbents are moderate -e.g., lesspartisan -because they needto appealto the swing voters in both parties. The explanationfor the differencein theoriesis dueto the term limits. Many also argue that the legislative process is as complex as it is to encourage compromise, and that it was never meant to be a quick thing. If they are right, then the declining understanding of the process on the legislative floor in both houses will make it harder for leadership to function, no matter who is in office, becausefewer members will be willing to compromise. And then, of course there is the possibility that the leadership itself is more tenuous and less sure about how to play the process, making it harder to bring their members along with them the way former speakerWillie Brown could, after so many years experience with the office. As it is, last year the rise of the "Big Five," the governor, and the Democratic and Republican leaders of houses in the legislature, seemed larger than ever. Since Senator Lockyer was the most experienced in either house and either party, it gave him a definite edge, and made it harder in the Assembly. Speaker Cruz Bustamante has admitted "working mistakes," but a legislative leader cannot afford many mistakes --however they are made --9r he will lose the perception of power. One leader or the other will always be more powerful than his or her fellows by shear dint of personality and political talent, but the consensus appears to favor experience as an important factor as well, often enabling the leader to make his members at least feel that they are involved. Another explanation for the greater visibility of the Big Five is that the whole decision-making process now takes place at a different level because so many other legislators are amateurs. 13 The Balance of Power Leadershipat all levels in the legislaturetoday requiresa very fast learning curve becausea leaderhas to believehe or sheknows what they are doing, and hasto be able to instill that confidencein others. Longtinte Sacramentoobservers fear that the loss of real knowledge,coupled with the inner absenceof confidencedoes not give time for newly- electedpoliticians to internalizetheir powerand learn their craft. Many committeechairs felt they had to actthis pastyear, just to prove they could. For some,it worked out well. For others,instead of acting with a broadbase of support,they are eitheracting rashly, or are too timid to sayor do muchat all. Knowing the cules of procedure matters in both houses, but ever since Willie Brown began changing the rules to keep the Democrats in power when the Assembly should have had a Republican leader, Assembly rules have become more subject to change.