California’s primary election is a week away. Have you perused your propositions lately?

That’s what opponents of Proposition 93 are calling the measure — a flimflam. A farce, a sham, a smokescreen for personal gain. In fact, the No-on-93 crowd is all but wearing out their synonym finders trying to communicate to voters what a self-serving power grab this proposition really is.

It’s not that we in California couldn’t use a little term-limit reform, which is what this measure ostensibly is all about. Lawmakers are currently allowed to serve a maximum of six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate. The initiative, if passed, will allow officials to serve a total of 12 years in either house.

Not a lifetime, but long enough, perhaps, to actually get something done. So term limit reform is not necessarily a bad thing.

It’s just that once upon a time in Sacramento, the authors of Prop. 93 — Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and pal Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, whose own terms have epitomized shady self-service — promised with Gov. Schwarzenegger to support a term limit change only if it were partnered with redistricting reform.

Looks like they sort of forgot that part. Convenient, is it not?

Convenient because if voters approve 93, the measure’s grandfather clause will make Nunez eligible for an extra six years in office and Perata another four. In fact the measure will very likely prolong the careers of 42 lucky lawmakers who otherwise would have termed out of office this year or in 2010.

Really, if a redistricting fix isn’t a part of the measure, if extreme gerrymandering continues to guarantee an incumbent’s re-election, what’s the point?

Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield, one who stands to serve longer should the proposition pass, believes the measure will bring stability to the Assembly where “every two years 30 to 35 brand new people come in wanting to make their mark on the world.”

“All the bad ideas that have ever been heard get reintroduced and we go back to this spinning of the wheels,” Ashburn said. “There’s no time to build relationships, to work together to solve California’s big problems.”

Ashburn said he was frustrated when Schwarzenegger and Co. reneged on their promise to include redistricting as part of the term limit reform package. Ashburn, who has always opposed term limits, says the measure is far from perfect, but will “make a bad situation better.”

Problem is, passing 93 also rewards the bill’s manipulative authors — who surely could have written the same bill without the grandfather clause — with more years to make more trouble.

Ashburn is a solid public servant whom many of us would undoubtedly like to keep around for a while longer. Sadly, the same can’t be said for some of his colleagues.

Sorry, senator. Term limit reform is a good idea, but not like this.

Vote no on Proposition 93.