Schweisinger

Schweisinger v. Jones

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 1087·68 Cal. App. 4th 1320·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 183·99 Daily Journal DAR 161·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 122
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 31, 1998C028957California3,926 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

The People, acting through their reserved initiative powers, enacted the Political Reform Act of 1990, by passing Proposition 140 at the November 1990 General Election. Proposition 140 included a term limit for specified state officers, and was largely upheld by the California Supreme C ourt.

Members of the Assembly are limited by Proposition 140 to three terms: “The Assembly has a membership of 80 members elected for 2-year terms. No member of the Assembly may serve more than 3 terms.” (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 2, subd. (a).)

The trial court in this case concluded that a person who had served two terms and part of a third term was entitled to seek another term. This interpretation directly conflicts with the purpose of Proposition 140, as manifested by its language, and would lead to irrational results. We conclude that for purposes of the term limit provisions, service of any part of a term “counts” as service of a full term, with a single exception as drafted by the People. Accordingly, we reverse with directions.

I.

The voters of the 71st Assembly District chose Doris Allen to represent them in the 1990 General Election. She served her full term. Apparently as a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.