RALEIGH – In theory, limiting the terms of state lawmakers should increase the competitiveness of elections in at least two ways: by ensuring that a larger percentage of districts in each election lack incumbents, and by propelling politicians who want to stay in government service into running for other offices after their terms expire.
In practice, this is exactly what happens. Legislative elections have become more competitive in states with term limits. And according to a report in the August 2006 Governing (not yet online), “more and more term-limited legislators – including top leaders and powerful committee chairmen – are running for just about any statewide office they can find.” The race for Oklahoma lieutenant governor, for example, includes three state senators and both the speaker and minority leader of the Oklahoma House. The Louisiana secretary of state race drew four state senators. Imagine how different North Carolina politics would be if powerful state representatives and senators had to move up or out every few years. Sen. Marc Basnight for agriculture commissioner? Sen. Phil Berger for attorney general? House Speaker Jim Black for state auditor?
Yeah, admit it. You needed a good laugh.
I have been debating the merits of term limitation with good friends of mine on the other side of the issue (I’m pro) for what must be about 15 years now. I’ve pretty much heard all the arguments at this point, for and against, and concluded that for a large number of debaters, the issue really comes down to their respect or veneration for certain long-term officeholders, whose service to the public would have been denied by term limits.
For me, that’s the wrong test. As a term-limits supporter, I would immediately stipulate that the policy could block some good, informed, effective, well-meaning politicians from using their knowledge and experience to continue their public service. That is a loss. But there are gains, as well, and since I believe that there are many good, informed, effective, well-meaning people who don’t currently run for office – but could be persuaded to do so if there were more open seats in the legislature and Congress – I believe the gains to outweigh the losses.
The first argument to dismiss, right off the bat, is the silly suggestion that term limits are a violation of popular sovereignty because they deprive voters of the representation of their choice. Popular sovereignty, democracy, republicanism – whatever your preferred term for the principle of representative government, it is difficult to argue that term limits are antithetical to it because the vast majority of voters, of every persuasion, support term limits. It is rational and consistent to vote for your incumbent within the current electoral structure and support term limits to ensure rotation in office, including your incumbent and all the rest.
A better argument against term limitation is a balance-of-powers problem. The experience that comes from many terms in a legislative body, it is argued, allows lawmakers to master the legislative process, assert dominance over lobbyists and the legislative staff, and use legislative power to check the executive branch of government. This sounds plausible, but I think that it fails to match up with experience. Most lobbyists and legislative staffers I know hate the idea of term limits, because it would ruin the valuable relationships they have developed over time with leading legislators. And in the states with years of operating under term limits, governors (themselves subject to term limits in most) appear still to be checked and balanced, and policy outcomes appear no worse, and arguably better, than in states like North Carolina without term limits.
New faces, more competition up and down the ballot, the disruption of power relationships in state capitals –sounds pretty good to me.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.