The term limit one is interesting, and I'm voting for it, but not for the same reasons as you. See, I actually think that term limits are a bad solution to the problem. Incumbency advantage would be much smaller if it weren't so expensive to run a campaign for office. Then, the fundraising advantages of incumbency would not have such a strong influence on elections. So, steps to cut the necessity of fundraising to run competitively for office--such as smaller districts, spending caps and/or public funding of campaigns, etc--more directly address the root of the problem. As it is, term limits just limit how long the problem can continue--once someone is elected, they'll have all these advantages, just not indefinitely.

And, term limits come with a few big negatives. The first of which is that seniority and experience in the legislature is important. It takes a while to learn the ropes of a legislature in order to have a truly positive impact. If you're getting shoved out the door in 6 or 8 years, you don't have a lot of time to build on that experience. Relatedly, you don't have a lot of time to form positive relationships with your fellow legislators, especially from other parties/viewpoints. This is fundamental to a well-functioning legislature. Believe it or not, Sacramento wasn't always the 110% shitshow it is right now. In the 1970s, before the voter's revolution brought us term limits and Prop 13 and otherwise complicated the Legislature's job, the California legislature was held up as the model by which all other legislatures should be judged. There was new blood and old blood; the old blood preserving institutional memory with the new blood pushing new ideas and solutions. There was compromise--you could actually talk to your buddies across the aisle and work out a solution that was amenable--if not ideal--to both.

Term limits were designed to push out people who have become entrenched, and were just thinking about getting through their next re-election to keep employment (according to the arguments for limits). Nowadays, term limits still have people entrenched--for 6 or 8 years, instead of indefinitely--and with legislators looking for another office, that they're not term limited out of, to run for (whether or not they're doing it to be a positive influence or government or stay in a job). They think short-sightedly, not trying to accomplish an overarching legislative agenda, but sitting on small issues that look productive but ignore the bigger problems. If you're going to be gone next year anyway, by try to make a big push on a big problem? How is this an improvement?

And this is why I'm a fan of the new term limits initiative. Because it's not really toughening term limits, but adjusting them. So, while limits in Sacramento are reduced to 12 years (instead of the old 6 in the Assembly + 8 in the Senate = 14), you can serve out all 12 in the same chamber. This at least allows people to stick around, build friendships and coalitions, and think long-term. It allows people to build seniority and understanding of the chamber's conventions and traditions, in order to better serve the public.

So, if I haven't convinced you to actually vote AGAINST the term limits law (I'd feel terrible if I did somehow in this), keep in mind that term limits aren't the only solution to the problem you're concerned about. In fact, they're a pretty bad solution, and other ones--especially smaller districts, but also campaign finance reform--are also solutions, and you should strongly consider them if they ever make their way onto the ballot.

Also, Laura Richardson is a shame to the United States, California and the Democratic Party, so thank you for helping get rid of her.