Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Term Limits Ballot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees to place 3-term (12-year) charter amendment on March ballot; other options filed
Summary
After a long floor debate over whether to expand term limits for council and other citywide officials, council members voted to move forward with a single measure asking voters to allow three four-year terms (12 years total). The council noted partial retroactivity and removed a consecutive requirement; other proposals were noted and filed.
The Los Angeles City Council voted on Nov. 20 to place a charter amendment on the March ballot that would allow council members to serve three four-year terms (12 years total) rather than the current two-term limit. Council discussion was lengthy and divided, with members raising governance, democratic and practical concerns.
Councilmember Holden, the motion's original author, framed the proposal as a way to give elected officials more time to complete major projects and reduce the turnover that can slow long-range work. "I think the question before us is whether or not the voters of this city can make the change," he said during his remarks.
Several other council members, including Councilmembers Mysikowski and Pacheco, urged limiting the change to the council only and keeping the amendment simple and consistent with the voter intent in 1993. Pete Echeverria of the city attorney's office clarified legal points about retroactivity: the council asked staff to include language making the measure apply as a lifetime cap and to preserve partial-term rules so that brief partial terms would not necessarily count as a full term unless specified.
The council approved a motion by Councilmember Mysikowski to put a three-term option on the ballot and to note and file competing options (including a repeal of term limits and a four-term option). As approved, the item directs staff to draft the ballot measure language to provide a lifetime three-term cap (not “consecutive” only) and to include explicit language addressing partial terms; the council instructed staff to return revised documents for final placement on the March 2002 ballot.
Clerks and staff briefed members on cost: the city estimated roughly $1.7 million for a single measure in the March voter pamphlet and roughly $200,000 for each additional measure; the council discussed minimizing added expense by focusing on one clear measure.
After motion and amendment votes, the council recorded a formal vote on the three-term option; the motion to approve the three-term measure and note/file the others was approved (roll call recorded in the meeting). Council staff will return with final, revised charter language and ballot materials.
Council members repeatedly emphasized that the ballot outcome would be decided by voters and that the measure's passage or failure would settle the issue citywide.
The council also debated whether the amendment should apply only to council members or to all citywide elected officials; the body ultimately left the broader question in place for staff to reflect the council's adopted language, and asked for retroactivity language to be added as directed.
