1. In California, two legislative term limit initiatives were considered by voters in November, 1990. (Under state law, should conflicting ballot initiatives both win, the one receiving the larger number of votes prevails.) Proposition 131, limiting lawmakers to twelve consecutive years service (six terms in the State Assembly and three terms in the State Senate), was rejected by voters 62% to 38%. Proposition 140, limiting members of the Assembly to three terms (a maximum of six years) and State Senators to two terms (a maximum of eight years), was approved 52% to 48% [California Journal (December 1990, pp. 578–79)]. Unlike the defeated initiative, Proposition 140 also bars legislators from ever again holding the same office after having served their maximum term. In Colorado, voters approved an eight-year term limit for all state office holders and a 12-year term limit for federal legislators by a 71% to 29% margin in November, 1990 [Denver Post (November 8, 1990) and Gibbs (1990, p. 39)]. Voters in Oklahoma passed a twelve-year limit on state legislators’ terms in September 1990 [Gibbs (1990, p. 39)]. Another ballot initiative in Washington State would limit politicians in the state legislature to 10 consecutive years, in the Congress to 12 consecutive years, and to two terms as governor or lieutenant governor recently qualified for the ballot [Schnellinger (July 3, 1991, p. B1)]. This last initiative is unique in that it allows sitting politicians who have exceeded the term limits only one more term after the present one. Finally, restrictions were imposed last year on how long municipal officeholders can remain in office in San Jose, CA; Wichita, KS; and Kansas City, MO. [Perry (July 17, 1991, p. A10)].
2. California Journal (December 1990, pp. 590–606).
3. Colorado voters removed only one incumbent in 1990 who had served longer than the tenure limits. At the same time, those same voters reelected 12 incumbents who had already served the maximum tenure that would have been allowed under the tenure limits. [State of Colorado Abstract of Votes Cast, various issues and the Denver Post (November 8, 1990).]
4. Some political commentors have argued that voters would have preferred “genuine campaign-finance reform” but chose term limits as a second best solution [Gibbs (1990, p. 39)]. The problem with this argument is that campaign finance reform initiatives which were on the ballot in California were defeated at the same time the term limits were passed. One explanation for this apparent puzzle is that campaign finance reform actually lessen competition faced by incumbents [see e.g., Lott (1987a) and (1989)].
5. See also Lott and Fremling (1989) for another example that analyzes changing the composition and level of transfers.