There is a movement afoot in the Illinois, Vermont and California legislature's to pass a Bush impeachment resolution. Under relatively obscure House of Representative rules, any state legislature can present articles of impeachment to the House, at which time they must stop further business and consider those articles of impeachment.

Pretty good deal eh? If the House of Representatives isn't going to do oversight, we have fifty other governments to look to.

Unfortunately it's not that easy. I went to a local political event last night and discussed the situation with someone who intimately knows about the California legislature. Indeed, a California Assemblymember has drafted an impeachment resolution which will be considered by the Assembly leadership; in this case Democrats.

Slam dunk, right? A Democratic majority in both state houses in a progressive state?

Nope.

The California legislature is currently in bipartisan discussions that are "delicate", shall we say. These discussion center on presenting and passing legislation that would amend California legislator's term limits. Under current law, which was passed through the stupid initiative system, Assembly members and Senate members are limited to three terms of two years each in each the Assembly and the Senate. As was predicted by opponents of term limits, about the time a newly elected representative gets to know the issues and the ropes in their legislative chamber, they're gone.

The new proposal is to maintain a twelve year limit in the legislature, but allow all the twelve years to be used in either the Assembly or the Senate or both. It's still limiting, but would allow elected representatives some time to become good at their job. This is all in the discussion stages so nothing is firm yet. But the discussion and passage of any such legislation will require bipartisan support.

So do California Democrats throw a bomb in the middle of such discussions? Term limits reform is a very important issue for the workings of an effective California legislature which has struggled with turmoil since the new limits were enacted. But at the same time, Bush is dangerous too.

A good point came up during the discussion. Any state impeachment resolution would take time to pass, time to be transmitted to the House, and then time for the House to take action on it. Given the Republican control of the House of Representatives, you know that delaying actions, perhaps through suit in the courts, would be the order of the day. By the time any real public action were to take place, the mid-term elections would be upon us or past. In those elections, Democrats will either take control of the House or not. If they do, certainly investigations and perhaps impeachment will happen anyway. And if Dems don't win, any impeachment resolution will become de facto moot. Republicans will defeat it and the publicity value will be diminished after the election.

I'm torn on the issue. It's a political calculation that makes sense, but detracts from my undying desire to see Bush held accountable. My district assemblymember has said she would vote for an impeachment resolution. But I can understand why the Democratic majority leaders might not allow it to come forward right now.

I suspect the same dynamics may be at work in Illinois and Vermont. Either way, the mid-term elections continue to loom as a pivotal point in our collective history.