The Supremes have spoken in the Carrigan v Barovsky term limits case, or at least five of the seven of them have decided not to hear the Court of Appeal’s 2-1 decision overturning the trial court’s decision against Councilmember Barovsky. This leaves two conflicting published appellate court decisions out there for future California courts to agonize over, which to follow, the Barovsky case and the 2000 decision in Woo v Superior Court, in which the appellate court held that it must examine voter intent in enacting the City of Los Angeles term limits measure, including “the information and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet,” because these materials “may indicate the voters’ understanding of the measure and their intent in passing it.”
City Attorney Christi Hogin was quoted as characterizing the Supremes’ decision not to hear the Barovsky case as follows: “The final determination is the voters get exactly what they voted on.” But how can this be true when the 2000 Malibu term limits measure’s “Impartial Analysis” by the then-City Attorney stated clearly that: “A council member who is elected or appointed to serve less than four years of a term will only be eligible to serve one other term”?
The Supremes appear to be saying, in refusing to hear the Barovsky case, that the Impartial Analysis in the voter pamphlet has no meaning.
So we turn to Measure U, the measure on the April 11, 2006, ballot which would increase those term limits from two four-year terms to three four-year terms. I have in front of me the “Impartial Analysis of Measure U” by City Attorney Christi Hogin. In the aftermath of the Supremes’ decision not the hear the Barovsky case, I can only conclude that the City Attorney’s statement is neither “impartial” nor “an analysis.” She does not mention in this pro-council statement that current members of the council who would be termed out in 2008 would benefit directly from this increase to three four-year terms.
Twelve years (or up to 16 years in the case of Councilmember Jeff Jennings) is not term limits, but rather is a career.
Ted Vaill