www.BillSparkman.com

What Did and Do The Pro-Term Limit People Want and In Reality, What Was The Result? 

A brief synopsis of The Case of Term Limits, written by Karl T. Kurtz, et al, The National Council of State Legislatures, University of Michigan 2007.

It is recommended that anyone interested in studying the effects of the 1994 Term Limit Legislation that sweep the United States, buy The Case of Term Limits.  The in depth study on the real effects of the Term Limit legislations that occurred in 2004 is presented from a scientific perspective and written to be easily read and understood by the reader.  It is truly an eye opener and points out the reason so many States have repealed the Term Limit placed upon their governments in January 1995. 

So exactly what is it that the Pro Term Limit people wanted in 1994?  And what did they actually end up with? 

Let’s cut to the rhetorical abundance and manipulation expressed by the opposition to Ballot Issue 1A.

Here’s what the pro-Term Limit proponents thought in 1994 and – sadly NOW!  But they’ve failed to do their home work on the after effects of the 1994 Term Limit Implementation. 

Their Arguments in Favor of Term Limits:

1. Term limits would allow more people to have the chance to serve in the legislature, thus clearing the way for simple of citizen legislatures.
2. Those who run for office knowing that their terms are limited would be more likely to represent the people’s interests and seek policy changes that might be less susceptible to special interest groups.
3. Term Limits would restrict the election ability of incumbents during elections resulting in a more diverse group of every day people in state legislatures.
4. Special Interest Groups would become weaker with Term Limits in place because Term Limits would prohibit long term relationships being established between lobbyists and legislators.
5. Term limits would be just a small extension of the Term Limits most states have on their Governors, thus providing a level playing field for all office holders.

But as time went by, the effects of Term Limits were studied and published, and the disturbing Reality became known and responded to by States and Counties repealing their 1994 commitments to Term Limits.

Here’s what the Reality Check (What they got) produced:

1. The “new breed” of citizen legislators just didn’t materialize and diversity of more women and minorities becoming legislators didn’t occur.  In fact, as women legislators were termed out, most of the time they were replaced by men.  The old politicians were bid farewell (termed out), bringing an end to chamber careerism, but not having any effect on political careerism.
2. Term Limits have weakened the link between the legislators and their individual districts and the legislators spend less time and effort talking to their constituents and solving problems (noticeable in their last term when lame duck status sets in). The Reform the Term Limit Advocates had in mind, had the un-intended by-product of weakening the legislature and the level of citizen representation.
3. In Term Limit States, there is a marked decrease in the influence of leadership relative to the executive and the bureaucracy. 
4. There has been no evidence of the committee process being enhanced by Term Limits, however from the perspective of traditional committee functions, the hope of Term Limits bringing in new faces and ideas, has been translated into a growth in innocence, ignorance, and has led to a noticeable loss of committee influence and effectiveness, especially in regards to the executive branch.  The senior power brokers were, by definition and as the pro-Term Limit proponents had planned on, removed from office, which in turn decentralized the power in the legislatures, and at the same time undermined the gatekeeper roles of the committees, with the main beneficiaries of the Term-Limited committees, becoming the governors and multiple agencies.  The quality of work of the state legislative bodies has suffered.
5. Term Limits have increased the influence of Lobbyists.
6. While the legislators have experienced a loss of power, the influence of the governors and executive agencies has increased.
7. Term Limits have reduced the legislatures control over state spending and made their policy-making processes chaotic and confrontational, making them less capable of placing holds on executive spending.