Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

When California voters read Proposition 28’s ballot title, they overwhelmingly support the June 5th measure. That support radically dwindles when they learn more.

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll showing 68 percent in favor and only 24 percent opposed. Surveyed Californians were responding to the official ballot title, which reads that Prop 28 “reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years and allows 12 years’ service in one house.”

Voters want to reduce the time legislators spend in Sacramento.

But a poll commissioned by Citizens in Charge Foundation addressed the same measure, except voters were told, “Proposition 28 increases the total amount of time a person may serve in the state assembly from 6 years to 12 years.  It allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.”

Hearing that, voter support dive-bombed to a mere 28 percent, with 49 percent opposed.

Wording matters. Under Prop 28, the maximum time legislators can serve in both houses will be slightly reduced, from 14 to 12 years. But an analysis by U.S. Term Limits shows that only 8 percent of legislators would likely have their time in office reduced, since few legislators swap houses. Prop 28 doubles the amount of time politicians can stay in the Assembly and weakens the senate limit as well, allowing 82 percent of legislators to serve longer terms.

Jon Fleischman of Californians for Term Limits calls Prop 28 “a sham” because the ballot title was “written to fool the voters.”

“Scam” is a good word, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor

3 Comments

  1. JohnnyK says:

    if my reps are doing a good job for me, I don’t care how many terms that they serve. If they’re not doing a good job, vote the bums out.

  2. dd says:

    @JohnnyK. That is why I am against term limits, but for ballot access limits: After X years (I prefer a single term) an incumbent’s name can no longer appear printed on the ballot. If the incumbent is doing a good job for the majority they will enter his/her name in the ballot as a ‘write-in’. Problem solved – good incumbents (may) remain in, bad politicians are removed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2018 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top