Term Limits
- Share via
Four points concerning the controversy over the federal court’s setting aside the California term-limits initiative:
* When I voted I did not perceive whether a lifetime ban was included (despite my graduation from a first-rate law school decades ago).
* Only when the California Supreme Court decided the initiative’s constitutionality was it found that term limits are for life; and the court itself stated: “We agree with respondent [Secretary of State] Eu that the language of Proposition 140 is ambiguous as to its intent to impose a lifetime ban.”
* It seems obvious that voters are entitled to know what they are voting on before, not after, they punch their ballots.
* It is wrong to ascribe evil motives to federal judges who try to remedy this mistake.
MELVIN LENNARD
Pacific Palisades
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
