While much of America is watching today’s California primary
election to see who might emerge as favorites for the major party
presidential nominations, voters here need to focus at least as
much on Proposition 93, a ballot initiative billed as a reduction
in term limits for state lawmakers.
While much of America is watching today’s California primary election to see who might emerge as favorites for the major party presidential nominations, voters here need to focus at least as much on Proposition 93, a ballot initiative billed as a reduction in term limits for state lawmakers.
For the fate of this measure is essentially a referendum on the effectiveness and morality of two of the top three leaders of California government.
If Proposition 93 passes, Democrat Fabian Nuñez of East Los Angeles figures to get at least five and maybe six more years as Assembly speaker and fellow Democrat Don Perata of Oakland another four as leader of the state Senate.
The question nominally before voters is whether to cut the total time politicians can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12, but let them have all that time in one house or the other if they choose. But because Proposition 93 would apply its new 12-year limit to present as well as future legislators, Nuñez would essentially get to serve six more years in his present seat, rather than being termed out at year’s end. Perata would get four more years in the Senate, for a total of 18 in the Legislature.
So the real question voters will decide – if they understand the actual issue here – is whether Nuñez and Perata deserve to have their power extended.
Both are ethically challenged, at best.
Perata, for one, has spent at least three years under the cloud of an FBI investigation into his dealings with campaign contributors. His home has been searched, his associates grilled as agents apparently tried determine whether donors to the accomplished fund-raiser gained directly from his actions because of their contributions.
A federal grand jury has heard many hours of testimony, but no action has yet ensued.
Meanwhile, questions about the ethics of Nuñez have not reached the stage of a known investigation by any law enforcement agency. But newspapers have carried headlines reading “Campaign Cash Gives Nuñez Rich Travel Style” and “Watchdog Questions Assembly Leader’s Living Arrangements.” The accompanying stories detailed how Nuñez spent thousands of campaign dollars buying fine wines in a Bordeaux, France, store and purchased many thousands of dollars worth of Luis Vuitton luggage.
The stories also revealed that Nuñez shares a plush downtown Los Angeles apartment (in his Assembly district) with Democratic fundraiser Dan Weitzman. He acknowledges spending one or two nights there during most weeks, living with his wife in a $1.2 million suburban Sacramento home most of the time.
Nuñez says his lavish traveling style and his big spending on luxury items are needed because he’s representing the state and must both give gifts and maintain at least a “middle-class” lifestyle.
These items, some commentators have charged, may be legal, but do not pass the “smell test.”
More serious are conflict of interest questions about the role of Mrs. Nuñez, who goes by her maiden name of Maria Robles, in drawing a six-figure salary from a nonprofit group called Californians for Patient Care. She got the job in January 2005, just a month after her husband introduced a bill aiming to provide “affordable, quality health care coverage” to everyone in California.
The California Nurses Association calls Robles’ employer a front group for the hospital industry; in fact, it receives almost all its funding from the California Hospital Association.
While it’s not illegal for Robles to hold that job while her husband leads a legislative effort that would heavily affect the industry that funds her job, this one also doesn’t pass the smell test. Even though Robles denies ever discussing health care with her husband the speaker, how likely is it that any husband and wife can completely avoid talking about their jobs? Or that a husband wouldn’t look out for the interests of his wife?
None of these questions, of course, are on the ballot today (editors: please sub Feb. 5 or Tuesday here as appropriate if you wish, depending on date column is used). But they should be very much on the minds of voters.
For in crafting Proposition 93, Nuñez and Perata made certain their power would be secured for years to come if it passed. They say they were only interested in the well-being of the state, that allowing legislators to serve longer in one house would make for better lawmaking.
But anyone who can read between the lines will soon know this measure is about these two men more than anyone or anything else. That’s why besides asking themselves who might make the best president, voters also now need to reflect on the fitness of California’s most powerful legislative leaders.
