EDITORIAL NO ON PROP. 93 TERM-LIMIT MEASURE WOULD REWARD FAILURE.

THE supporters of Proposition 93 want voters to believe the measure is a grass-roots, good-government effort. It is not.

The measure is just a cloaked attempt by incumbent legislators nearing termed-out status to keep their jobs for up to six years longer.

Proposition 93 would reduce the total years that future legislators can spend in the California Legislature by two years -- but it starts the clock ticking again for current legislators, which is outrageous.

Under Proposition 140, term-limit legislation passed by voters in 1990, any one person may only serve two terms in the state Senate and three in the Assembly, for a maximum of 14 years.

Proposition 93 would allow politicians to spend a total of 12 years in the Legislature. But they could serve it all in a single house, where re- election is all but a sure thing, and they wouldn't have to seek voters' approval for a new office.

No wonder current legislators are so keen on the measure, and are tapping their political donors for millions for campaign support. Language in the provision automatically extends to those holding office now.

For example, a two-term Assembly member, like Speaker Fabian Nunez, would automatically qualify for an additional three terms in his current job. Senate President Don Perata would be eligible for four more years in the Senate.

That's quite a reward for doing such a poor job of solving the state's problems and managing its finances.

Like its soul sister, Measure R, which gave Los Angeles City Council members four more years in office, Proposition 93 is a naked attempt by current legislators to keep their six-figure jobs and trick the public into believing it's reform.

Don't be fooled, and don't reward California's do-nothing Legislature for its members' deceitful attempt to keep their jobs. Vote no on Proposition 93.