Fabian Nunez Should Be Primaried

Let me first say that I am generally a supporter of relaxing restrictive term limits, in the larger context of reforming elections generally so that the people get to decide when their legislator's time is up. But take a look at the condescension dripping from this statement from the Assembly Speaker:

Riding high from a session last year that many praised as the Legislature's most productive in years, and without an obvious landing pad when he is termed out next year, Nuñez has increasingly said in recent months that he thinks that voters will be open to adjusting term limits.

"You can't do the job effectively if you can't be there for a reasonable amount of time, to have a real grasp on the issues," he told a group of newspaper publishers last month. " … It takes a couple of years to develop the level of expertise and know-how to negotiate a balanced budget."

To me, that reads as "I own this seat, and I deserve to be here as long as I possibly can."

There are these things called primary elections, and the people (in a perfect world, anyway) are supposed to judge the qualifications of each candidate and make their own choice. You can run on experience, but you're not entitled to your position because of it. And you certainly should not be able to change the rules mid-stream and subvert the prior will of the voters in a power grab to keep the Speaker's gavel:

The proposed initiative would extend the terms of sitting lawmakers by allowing them to remain in place until they have served 12 years in their current house. Some could end up serving as many as 20 years in the Legislature before having to leave.

People already termed out of the Assembly or Senate could not run for those houses again. Former lawmakers' years of service would count toward the 12-year cap if they returned to the Capitol.

How clever. So those who used to be in government and see this as an opportunity to return get the door slammed in their face, but Nuñez gets to extend himself for six more years. It's like a sentencing law that only applies to people who have already committed the crime instead of those who are in the process of committing it.

We all know that this was the real reason for the move of the Presidential primary to February. Nuñez wants to run again in 2008, so he crafted a law that will enable him to do so. He also has over $7 million in the bank for any possible campaigns, $4 million of it from AT&T laundered through the California Democratic Party for services rendered.

At least Don Perata, who also stands to gain from the change in the law (although according to Frank Russo he may have to get the law rewritten to benefit), is a little more discreet about it, and he says the right things:

After he learned of the proposed initiative Thursday from Nuñez, Perata issued a statement that any modification should be tied to a discussion of how to make government more open and accountable.

"It's not just about how long we serve," Perata said, "but how well we serve."

But Nuñez is so lustful of power that he doesn't mind the appearance of impropriety. If he is serious about relaxing term limits in the pursuit of more enlightened public officials, he would sign a pledge vowing not to run again and benefit from the law he is shepherding. Nunez could run for state Senate and serve 8 years if he wanted to stay in public office. He could bring his experience in Sacramento to bear in the other chamber. But he's just got to have that gavel in his hand. It's the only way to enrich his campaign coffers, I guess.

If he refuses to sign such a pledge, and insists on using the state initiative process as a personal power grab, then someone in the 46th Assembly District ought to challenge him for that seat. And there would be exactly two issues in that campaign: this initiative, and the $4 million handoff from AT&T. And while Nuñez has a nice record in other areas and a great deal of powerful friends and influence in his district, I suspect those two issues would be very persuasive.