Two of San Bernardino County's most influential daily newspapers - the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Riverside Press Enterprise - ran separate editorials this week questioning the apparent high priority that some state legislators have on modifying Califonia's landmark voter-approved term limits statute.

In brief, the Daily Bulletin wonders why certain lawmakers in Sacramento are so motivated to change the state's term limits law (which restricts assemblymembers to three terms and state senators to two terms) at the expense of approving state legislative redistricting reform that could result in constituencies being designed without consideration of partisan gerrymandering.

One widely-discussed measure would limit Sacramento legislative service to 12 years that could be served in either the Senate or the Assembly.  Additionally, there is talk of a move to throw out the law altogether via a succesful court chalenge to California's exisitng term limits.

From the Daily Bulletin editorial:

"When the Public Policy Institute of California asked the state's voters what they thought about plans to water down term limits for state legislators, only 29 percent were in support.

But when PPIC asked voters what they thought of taking away legislators' power to draw their own districts, more than twice as many, 64 percent, approved.

So which proposal do you think is getting all the energy and effort in Sacramento - redistricting, which voters overwhelmingly support, or the anti-term limits plan that voters vehemently oppose?

Yes, the pols are working on the measure that suits them, even if everyone else hates it."

The Press Enterprise opined on a move by freshman Democratic State Senator Ronald Calderon (Los Angeles County) to sue the people of California in an attempt to repeal California's term limits law.

The PE notes that:

"The lawsuit strategy is political cynicism, nothing more. Calderon knows that the term-limits law, which voters passed in 1990, remains popular. But rather than take his case for change to skeptical voters, the senator would have a termed-out legislator challenge the law in court.

There is scant reason to think a legal challenge would be successful now when such efforts have repeatedly failed in the past. The state Supreme Court affirmed term limits in 1991, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again upheld the law in 1997. As then-Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas wrote in 1991, "The state's strong interest in protecting against an entrenched, dynastic legislative bureaucracy" trumps any value in retaining incumbents indefinitely."

As the movement to alter California's popular term limits law gains steam (for better or worse), watch for conflicting polls to provide confusing results for those closely following this issue.  For instance, a poll published by the Public Policy Institute of California demonstrated a lack of support for the pending initiave about to be circulated before California voters. Yet a different poll undertaken by San Jose State University showed the proposed measure ahead with over 50 percent in voter support.

In conclusion, the drive to change California's term limits law has a long way to go - but with powerful political figures working to implement a change, it is an issue that will not disappear for the forseeable future.