THERE ARE RIGHT AND wrong ways of doing things in government and politics as well as everything else. Proposition 93 on the Feb. 5 primary ballot is the wrong way to change California term-limits for state legislators.

It's a misleading trick, a deceptive effort by special interests and incumbent lawmakers to help those in positions of political power to remain in place. That alone is a good reason to reject Prop. 93.

Through the subterfuge of neglecting to tell voters everything, the constitutional amendment wants voters to approve a change in state law to perpetuate and prolong the careers of 42 politicians who would otherwise be termed out of office this year or in 2010.

That's the loophole Prop. 93 proponents -- and those destined to benefit from the change it makes -- don't like talking about. The grandfather clause would enable Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and 40 other lawmakers scheduled to leave office to stay in their current seats longer than the 14 years voters prescribed.

In 1990, Californians overwhelmingly approved Proposition 140, limiting members of the Assembly to three, two-year terms and two, four-year terms in the Senate for a combined 14 years in the Legislature.  Although it's true that, as Prop. 93's misleading ballot explanation asserts, it would lower the total number of years future lawmakers could serve from 14 to 12, it also lets current members serve 12 years in the chamber they now occupy.

 

That amounts to an extension beyond constitutional limits for incumbents such as Perata who've served in both chambers. And if Prop. 93 passes, that's just what Nunez, Perata and most other termed-out lawmakers intend to do. They will run again for the offices they're unable to retain under existing law.

Nunez could get as many as six more years as Assembly speaker and Perata another four as leader of the Senate. It's duplicitous. If reform is the real purpose, language could have been put into the measure preventing incumbents nearing the end of their careers from extending their time in office beyond current limits.

The goal of amending or changing term limits is certainly one many Californians may want to entertain, under the right circumstances. But they're being lured in an underhanded way to vote for something that advocates prefer to hide from public scrutiny.

We are being manipulated by termed-out politicians who don't want to leave office and will do anything -- including deceive voters -- to stay in power.  Most don't deserve to remain in power beyond current limits. For more than a decade, California has been plagued by do-nothing legislators -- a possible exception being the 2006-07 fiscal year -- who are accustomed to letting ballot initiatives do their job for them.

Legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who once said he would oppose changing term limits without also changing redistricting -- the way lawmakers draw up their own legislative districts -- have reneged on that pledge. Just another reason Californians shouldn't support Prop. 93.

It's improper and a conflict of interest for lawmakers to propose and push laws governing their own imminent elections when the outcome benefits them and other incumbents holding those offices.

Californians should not let state politicians scheme to rewrite the Constitution to keep themselves in office. Make your discontent with this attempt at political subterfuge clear by voting a resounding "no" on Prop. 93.