Term limits

In virtually every state in which they’ve been enacted, term limits for elected officials have been the bane of the political establishment, which will stop at nothing to get around or weaken them. (When Nevada’s term limit law goes into effect in two years, expect a court challenge.)

California is no different.

Golden State voters passed term limits in 1990. Under the law, legislators may serve three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate — a total of 14 years.

Voters rejected an effort to modify the limits in 2002.

But lawmakers about to be sent packing under the law came back this year with another proposal. This time, they offered to cap service at 12 years, but allow all the service to take place in one house.

That might sound reasonable.

But backers of the measure — led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and President Pro Tem Don Perata, who would both be term limited this year — also included a grandfather provision that allowed current lawmakers to serve extra terms.

No go, said voters on Tuesday. Despite the fact that supporters tried to confuse voters by claiming the initiative actually strengthened term limits, the measure failed 53 percent to 47 percent.

One interesting aside: Opponents of term limits often argue that such caps are bad because they rob citizens of experienced lawmakers and empower staffers, bureaucrats and special interests who will run roughshod over neophyte legislators.

But guess who ponied up to fund the effort to undermine California’s term limits? “Public employee unions, individual legislators and corporations with business before the Legislature” were the primary backers of the initiative, according to the Los Angeles Times.

What does that tell you?