36.0°

Tom Anderson, Bruce Weyrauch, Pete Kott, John Cowdery, Vic Kohring. What do these gentlemen have in common? If you have been following the news lately, you know that each one has been indicted for corruption while serving the people's interests. But, there is also another commonality. Each has/had served more than two consecutive terms of office. Possibly, if there had been a term limit rule, there is a good chance they would not be in the fix in which they presently find themselves.

Proposals to limit the terms of state legislators have been the subject of public policy debate since 1990 when voters in California, Colorado, and Oklahoma passed citizen initiatives limiting the terms of legislators. Subsequently, other states passed similar initiatives. Currently, 15 states have term-limited legislatures.

Term limits date back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Known as "rotation," citizens in colonial America served in the legislature then returned to private life. This was not a legal mandate, rather, an informal social practice. Since World War II, serving as legislator has become a profession for many, spawning what we now have, the "career" politician. During the 1980s and '90s sentiment grew that these career lawmakers were becoming too secure and isolated and therefore less responsive to their constituents. Citizen initiatives to limit terms were the result.

These citizen initiatives placing limits on the number of terms legislators may serve proved extremely popular. Public opinion polls show strong support for term limits. Initiatives passed in nearly every state where they appeared on the ballot, and most passed with little opposition. It is interesting, that in most of the states, legislators did not seek the restrictions, but were thrust upon them by a state's voters.

Advocates point to several positive outcomes. One, it prevents an incumbent from using the office to remain in power indefinitely. Let's face it, incumbents have a huge advantage when it comes to campaigning for election. They have name recognition. They have a built-in advantage because of franked constituent mailing privileges and subsidized staff and travel.

They also have easier access to the media and campaign contributions. Studies show that incumbents raise, on average, more than twice the amount of campaign contributions that their challengers do. They have the job, and in essence, the voters have to "fire" them. Supporters of term limits claim that this advantage is undemocratic. Since most incumbents no longer fear losing their jobs, they cease to be concerned with the needs of their constituents.

Second, term limits make room for fresh faces and encourage greater participation. Since there will always be a few vacancies for new candidates, people who would not normally choose to run, might do so if they did not have to challenge an incumbent. This might give "Joe Six-Pack" some added incentive.

With new faces comes greater diversity, possibly bringing the legislative body's demographics more in line with those of the general population. In those states that now have a track record of term limits, the number of successful female and minority candidates has risen.

Third, legislators would stop making choices solely to prolong their career. If a politician can serve as many terms as they wish, they may be tempted to follow policies which will ensure their long-term political survival, rather than policies which further the interests of their district and constituents.

Supporters of term limits sometimes argue that if politicians know from the beginning that their time in office is limited, they act differently. They are much less self-serving. There would also be less chance of those now familiar VECO-type, cozy, power deals from materializing.

Finally, it would level the playing field of seniority. Term limits guarantee that each district will have representatives of similar seniority. No district can claim an advantage by sending the same person year after year. In addition, term limited legislators have almost instant influence.

Opponents of term limits claim they already exist. They are called "elections." This is nothing but a simplistic retort. Research clearly points out, at least on the state level, that nearly all unindicted incumbents win elections. Many of the reasons for that phenomenon are articulated in this article. I'll close with a quote from an old Republican sage ... "One thing our founding fathers could not foresee ... was a nation governed by professional politicians who had a vested interest in getting re-elected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then looking ... forward to getting back to the farm." --Ronald Reagan (1973)