Capers With Carroll

California’s polls have been closed almost three hours, with the voters rendering judgment over a lose-lose choice. On the five budget-balancing (well, not even balancing…call it juggling) propositions, voters ruled that the chaos of the unknown is preferable to the shell-game offered by the state’s elected leadership. The margins are running between 40-60 and 37-63. The only the measure to pass prohibits politicians from voting themselves raises during years running deficit budgets. That one is up 77-23.

Our state has been ungovernable for a decade, maybe two. The reasons include a hodgepodge of ballot propositions, and term-limits. The first takes away the legislature’s flexibility in fashioning a budget. The second takes away their incentive to do so. Since reelection beyond a second term is denied them, they have very little reason to go the extra mile. Then, since the legislators as a group are transitory, the savvy movers-and-shakers come from the armies of staffers and lobbyists who never find themselves termed out. The end result is a legislature that busies itself fiddling while California burns.

Today’s Prop 1F, therefore, while it’s a feel-good “Take that!” for the voters, does nothing to solve our problems. Many of the suggestions I hear do no better. For example, denying legislators’ their salaries during periods when the state enters a budget year without a new budget sounds good, but provides insufficient leverage.

However, what if we did away with term limits, but replaced them with a stipulation that anytime the legislature failed to approve a version of a budget by the deadline, no member of that legislature could appear on the ballot at the next election? I would even let members run write-in campaigns to retain their seats, or return to office after sitting out a term.

Term limits have not given us better government. Neither has government by ballot proposition. We need a legislature that functions well enough to erase the need for ballot propositions. We want to reward good service, and penalize poor service. We want to overcome the tendency for a senate or assembly seat to become a lifetime appointment. We want to provide the incentive for our legislators to sweat a little on our behalf, and level the playing field for a challenger when the incumbent’s performance has fallen short. I believe my proposal would be a step in that direction.