top
San Francisco
San Francisco
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Should San Francisco Extend Supervisors’ Term Limits?

by Randy Shaw, Beyond Chron (reposted)
A proposed November ballot initiative is being floated that would enable San Francisco Supervisors to serve three terms, rather than two. Los Angeles voters recently extended term limits for City Council members, and the State Legislature is finalizing a term limits reform for the February 2008 state ballot. Conservatives have promoted term limits, and some progressives view limits as an important strategy for reinvigorating democracy. Would giving San Francisco Supervisors the right to serve a third term benefit local government, and, if so, would progressives gain from the proposal?
In studying the history of term limits in California, it is striking how right-wing interests were the leading backers of this reform. Conservatives clearly saw term-limits as weakening the power of government, though the California Legislature is clearly far more progressive today than when the state’s voters enacted term-limits in 1990.

The chief argument for term limits is that incumbents have so many advantages seeking re-election that politicians are free to become increasingly less accountable to their constituencies. Longterm incumbents are more likely to establish political “machines” which then select candidates for other offices, thus detracting from grassroots influence on our political system.

The main counter-argument is that voters should be free to select who they want to represent them. In addition, some term-limit measures are so restrictive---such as the three two-year terms in the State Assembly--- that one legislative body becomes a revolving door of inexperienced legislators who are more dependent on veteran lobbyists to learn about issues.

More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4260#more
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by ^
Three cheers for term limits. The reason term limits came into existence is because of the utterly reactionary, anti-rent control, anti-gay (yes, we saw that when he was mayor against the Easter festival on Castro Street and framing a gay librarian on child molesting charges), millionaire gambling, election frauding thug Willie Brown, who enriched himself while promoting his reactionary policies, illegally making himself speaker of the assembly, and much more. While his fellow reactionaries may have other reasons to support term limits, the fact remains it is the only way we can get rid of the thugs who sit in office, a prime example being Willie Brown, a proud Democrat. Since we have no proportional representation whereby each party is represented in the legislative body (federal, state and local) if it wins at least 5% of the vote, we must support term limits. I will be voting no on any anti-term limits ballot measure on the San Francisco or California ballots. All the Democrats who oppose term limits can thank their fellow Democrat, Willie Brown, for our term limit laws. The sooner we get rid of both the Democrat and Republican parties, the sooner we can make real progress.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$135.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network