Term Limits

Term limits largely came in a wave in 1994. We looked at the experiences in the states where term limits had kicked in and concluded that all they did was more-than-ever entrench the decision makers. Instead of elected people making the decisions and being subject to the voters, the power shifted even more to staff and lobbyists (who remain and have the advantage of institutional knowledge). Especially when it comes to the budget, it is very useful to have elected people in the body who have ridden the ups and downs of an economic cycle and can give some perspective.

Of course, I realize that people can, and will, argue that we just want to hold the offices for life. That’s their right, and for some legislators it might be true. But people should consider the average lifespan of a legislator. In the House (largely through self-selection), it is right around 4 years. (I heard that number and have never independently verified it; but, it seems accurate. I’ve been there 7 years, and there aren’t many Reps who’ve been there longer than I have).

In any event, if you believe the newspapers, we’ll have at least 38 new House members after the voucher ordeal.

I’ve frequently heard the argument against term limits that Steve mentioned above – that long-termers, particularly lobbyists, gain greater influence. While I can’t say much about the staff side – I know staffers typically do stick around, bouncing from one office holder to another – I have heard numerous reports about the influence of lobbyists in Missouri.

Initially people worried that lobbyists would come in and woo legislators with their advanced experience in particular areas, and therefore, newbie legislators ought to heed their counsel. That’s not what happened here, for the most part. Instead, what did happen is that our newbies told the lobbyists that they weren’t interested in being puppets to lobbyists – that they would vote with their gut or by listening to their constituents. It turned out that the lobbyists had much greater influence with legislators that had been around for decades, and with whom they had been long able to nurse friendships. The new guys wanted none of it.

I don’t know if this has been seen in other states. I don’t know if it would work the same way in Washington. I don’t know how much influence the staffers actually have on legislative votes. But as for Missouri, lobbyists have lost a degree of influence because of term limits.

I recognize that incumbency creates a barrier to entry to potential candidates. However, an incumbent also has a record which makes them vulnerable as well. On divisive issues, an office holder has the potential of ticking off a large number of voters. My experience has also been that people remember the votes that go against them much better than the votes that vote with them.

To me, the problem with Utah politics isn’t a lack of term limits, it’s a lack of political balance and a lack of accountability facing office holders. I also pin a certain amount of blame on what I consider to be a weak and compliant press corp. The basic problems that term limits are meant to correct are better corrected through political means, rather than regulated means via statute changes.

Constitutional amendments require far too many votes in the legislature to ever really make it through the resolution process. Too many State Senators will oppose term limits on House members because when their term is over in the House, they’ll just challenge their Senator, and vice versa.

I think getting a majority in both houses would be difficult, but to get 2/3 which is what would be required (if I remember right) to put the amendment on the ballot would be darned near impossible.

Who is this Obi Wan Liberali fellow that raises such good points? The force is strong with this one.

Like blogging, incumbency should show whether an official is good/bad, wise/dumb, keepable/tossable, etc. The problem is that people don’t get or don’t take a clear look at what the incumbents are actually doing. I think it’s a rather crude tool to give all officials an expiration date and toss them after it passes. But — as is often the case — it’s also a crummy situation when they (we?) get a free pass just because their (our?) names are somewhat known, signs already are stored in the garage, a war chest is built up, etc.

I remain optimistic that the Internet will blow open the doors to government; people will get a close look at their representatives; and people will make informed decisions on whether to discard or recycle. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

I’ve got to amend the above briefly. I mentioned that the argument that the will of the people ought to be the ultimate decider of an individual’s term of office is a sound one, though it is rarely carried out because of the electoral advantages of incumbency. Now I argue that it is possible, and has already happened in some states, that the will of the majority (and in some states, like mine, a super majority) of the people want their legislators generally to be held to a limited term of office. In Missouri, over 75% of our voters passed legislative term limits. In many other states the same has been done. I think, perhaps, our nation’s voters would like to see the same for congress.

One problem – in most, if not all, states, there is a process for the voters to directly make law by referendum. That’s how legislative term limits have always come about, because the legislators have been unwilling to limit their own terms. We do not have such a direct means of enacting federal law, so congressional term limits can only be made to happen if congressmen become willing to limit their own terms in favor of public sentiment (assuming that it is indeed the will of the people), which has not yet been done by any state legislature. I guess, then, that even if term limits are good, and if the majority of people wanted to see them enacted, the only way to accomplish it is for the people to vote their representatives out of office every so many years, because they’ll never vote themselves out of power.

I do not believe that the bar should be lowered for constitutional amendments. It is extremely difficult to pass a constitutional amendment because we hold the document in such high regard. We hold the State Constitution to be the supreme law of the state, second only to the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the nation.

These documents should contain only essential principles and should be tampered with only at great need. Making the amendment process easier would cheapen the value of the documents almost as much does the ignoring of the documents’ provisions.

I find myself on both sides of the term limits issue. I very much appreciate Jason’s suggestion that it may be good to toss even great statesmen because the office is more important than any person that may hold it. I also appreciate Obi Wan’s and Steve U’s articulations about the drawbacks of term limits. In effect, we would trade one set of problems for another. But it is also possible that the trade-off could be productive.

I just discovered this great website talking intelligently about term limits, and as you can see from my website tenurecorrupts.com , the subject is dear to my heart.

However, while all agree to the fact that it is extremely difficult to get the bill for such a constitutional amendment passed in Congress, none of you has addressed the alternative method provided in Article V of the Constitution “for a convention for proposing amendments”, which Hamilton, in Federalist 85, has declared that when 2/3 of states have applied, will be peremptorily called by Congress.
All 50 states have applied. Congress has ignored this Constitutional duty.

Time to impeach Congress ? (see foavc.org)