Speaking as a Californian of 19 years, I have my quibbles with Newsom, but I would be excited to see him run for President and could absolutely see myself voting for him (but also open to a different, even stronger, candidate).

I haven't heard her state a position on term limits. What she has stated, publicly, is that on many issues she has been able to achieve success because we have younger legislators. I am the one making the connection with term limits. By comparison, our congressional delegation is 20-30 years older.

I have been critical of term limits for a long time, but then I hear my own representative say her legislative success would not have been possible without a legislature filled with people actually experiencing the state's challenges. My conclusion is that decades in office insulates folks.

This has provided a working majority who have direct experience with California's housing crises and are taking action to address it. The state is leading on energy, transportation, and labor issues as well.

I can't point to a study, but having been a resident of California for nearly 20 years now, my lived experience is that term limits have allowed a generation of talented politicians to take control of the legislature much sooner than if they had to wait for the prior generation to die.

It's cool to see the Court adopt the same interpretation!

My home state Senator! Though, she has served since I was a teenager and it's probably time to allow someone else to pick up the mantel and carry on the fight.

I keep telling people this, but I don't have any real data to point at to make the point. Are there historical examples of gerrymanders gone wrong from the perspective of the gerrymander?

Much of the Abundance policy recommendations are targeted at Democratic Party governed states, like NY and CA. Yes, federal policy is discussed, but the primary thesis for the energy chapter (just as an example) is why can't California build things at the speed Texas builds things?