Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Yesterday’s other hearing
Next Post: OK, but how do you pay for it?
Posted in:
* Chris Mooney, director of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, tackled some myths about term limits in Crain’s. Mooney has done quite a bit of research on the topic.
One point that particularly caught my eye is the apparently false belief that term limits shift power to lobbyists…
Lobbyists despise term limits and are not strengthened. Their job depends on developing trust with lawmakers and educating them on issues. With term limits, lobbyists must work ever harder at this, as members and leaders come and go.
That’s an interesting point and probably spot on.
* More…
• Term limits will yield “citizen legislators,” bringing some common sense and real-world experience to state government.
False. Term-limited legislators are no different in their political experience and ambition than those who are not term-limited, although there is more “churning” of officeholders, as local officials and state lawmakers swap offices more frequently.
• Term limits will make legislatures more diverse.
False. Term-limited lawmakers are not noticeably different in occupational profile, average age, gender or race.
• Term limits will increase competition and decrease campaign spending.
False. Overall, these don’t change with term limits, although their patterns do. A term-limited incumbent is almost never challenged for re-election. Rather, people interested in the job will wait for his/her final term, at which point there is a colossal scrum for the open seat. Whoever wins the seat then gets a pass until his/her limit is reached.
* Another interesting point…
Committee chairs have less knowledge of issues and procedures, leading to more chaotic, partisan hearings and less influence in the lawmaking process.
In the House, committees are very tightly controlled by leadership, so term limits would likely produce even more partisan “chaos.”
* I know I’m excerpting too much, but one final thought from Mooney…
Of course, term limits advocates might argue that weakening the legislature is good. But as one who values the American principle of balanced power in government, I offer one word of caution to those who would like to see the currently strong Illinois governorship grow even stronger: Blagojevich.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Yesterday’s other hearing
Next Post: OK, but how do you pay for it?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A second word: Ryan
Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:21 am
One needs only look at California its term limits for different positions. Politicians don’t go home and get a real job… Instead they move to a DIFFERENT political position or are appointed to a government position while waiting to move back into an elected position.
we’d do better with out gerrymandering districts and instead drawing districts on straight north to south, east to west lines… only to deviate when a significant geographical feature or state boundary gets in the way. Regardless of party, the creation of districts based on keeping X number of districts “safe” is silly and worse than simple term limits.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:22 am
I would also suggest reading Thad Kousser’s work on term limits in California. The essence of his argument is that term limits have decreased level of policy expertise, placing more emphasis on the policy goals of staffers, who are not limited by time.
To be a bit facetious, the faces will change, but the puppeteer won’t.
Comment by NIref Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:24 am
NIref is exactly right.
The staff are already highly valuable. Term limits weaken the knowledge base of the legislature and puts more value and strength in the hands of the staff and the lobbyists. I am not saying that’s totally a bad thing - but my point is that if the term limits proponents think that term limits will put power “back in the people’s hands” it would actually do the exact opposite.
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:31 am
Okay, revising my point after re-reading your post. Yes, many lobbyists depend on their relationships, but those who have substantial policy depth of knowledge are just as influential for what they know. Not all lobbyists are the same.
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:33 am
Chris knows his stuff. One of the best qualitative and knowledgeable guys in his field.
Comment by Jorge Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:35 am
No mention of what term limits would do to legislative leaders?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:42 am
If I had to pick, I’d rather have term limits for the executive branch over the legislative. I pretty much want term limits for every elected office.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:47 am
And from the opposing side, a third word: Madigan.
I believe it is the length of the term that would define whether staffs and/or lobbyists begin exerting too much influence. I would favor a 12-16 year term limit, so legislators could establish some committee power; just not forever.
Comment by Darienite Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:48 am
Term limits are anti-Democratic and act as a hacksaw when was we need is a scalpel. Changing redistricting is the first change that needs to happen it will only get done by voter referendum.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:51 am
as I have argued previously, when people ask for term limited heart surgeons and demand inexperienced attorneys to represent them, then term limits will be a good idea.
Until then I want the most experienced represenative I can elect…..as long as he/she supports the rights of bears to carry guns and have abortions…
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:53 am
I was going to say the exact same thing as siriusly. With all due respect to Professor Mooney, his point “their job depends on developing trust…and educating them on issues.”
Well, once the new legislator is sworn into office, this doesn’t take long if the lobbyist is competent and has expertise in some field.
The modern legislature is faced with complex issues in any state. The whole notion of a “citizen legislator” is nonsensical. The advocates always state, oh, teachers, shopkeepers, etc. will serve then go back home to their normal lives.
Really? What teacher do you know that can afford to simply take off for 6-8 years and run for office? Or a small businessowner? Or whatever common person the advocates say will be enabled to run.
Regardless of background, who is the new legislator going to learn from? People that are unelected : Lobbyists and staff. Like any other occupation, it takes time for the legislator to learn the job, and they become effective once they develop expertise and can think for themselves.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:55 am
For me, the most interesting aspect of the article was the idea that term limits are needed to punish the legislative branch.
In a true republic (small “r”) the legislature should be the more powerful branch, subject to a constitution enforced by the judiciary. Since all members of the legislature are routinely elected, we the people == usually == receive the legislature we deserve.
Weakening the legislature and strengthening the executive may seemingly give more power to “the people” but actually gives more power to whoever can best seduce the people.
Last year we saw Shakespeare’s play “Julius Caesar” performed by Chicago Shakespeare and the character of Marc Antony made all of this abundantly clear. Especially when Antony dramatically tore up all the supposed promises made to “the people”
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:59 am
This will be an academic debate in Illinois unless the Rauner effort makes it through the courts. As I said in an earlier post, I don’t think he can get around the constitutional requirement that the measure affect the structure of the GA just by tacking a restructuring onto the completely unrelated term limits. Term limits affect the manner that the elected representatives get there, not the structure of the GA. The courts may lop that off the referendum.
Comment by McHenry Mike Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:01 am
There are different types of lobbyists and while it might be true that a contract lobbyist (particularly one who is already very close the the legislative leadership) maybe wouldn’t welcome term limits an industry lobbyist in a technical field would probably benefit greatly. For example the utility or telecom industries are big enough to always have a professional relationship with any legislative leader regardless of turnover and the laws that govern them are technical enough that a high turnover rate in the legislature would almost certainly make it easier for them to get favorable language inserted into these highly technical bills that aren’t well understood by laypeople.
Comment by The Captain Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:04 am
=== Term limits affect the manner that the elected representatives get there, not the structure of the GA. The courts may lop that off the referendum. ===
Agreed.
Related, is anyone aware of ongoing efforts to collect signatures for Rauner’s proposed amendment?
Rauner obviously is not collecting signatures for the primary, having not chosen a Lt Gov yet.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:04 am
@low level
An argument can also be made that if the government was in so many areas the job may not be as complex as it is.
No one assumes that every politician is an expert or even proficient in discussing every topic that may come across. But to assume that a lawyer that has been in the legislature for 10 years may be better at making law about schools better than a teacher or former principal is kind of silly… isnt it?
Or a 10 year legislator that is a lawyer is knows more about power generation and rates than a former comEd employee or exec? or that same lawyer passing farming and food laws vs an actual farmer or food distributor?
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:07 am
==’so term limits would likely produce even more partisan “chaos.”’
Perhaps, however, term limits just might reduce the rapid corruption in this State. Those that have been around for a few decades know better how to hide it. But perhaps not.
Comment by Rufus Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:17 am
===term limits just might reduce the rapid corruption in this State===
Meh. Blagojevich wasn’t in the IL House all that long and served less than two terms as governor. Rep. Derrick Smith is also a relative newbie. I’m not sure one has to do with the other.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:18 am
term limits need to be for all state and federal elected positions–I favor 12 years, but 16 years would work, too.
that said, though, I agree with others here, we need to address the way we draw our district maps first. an effort underway right now to get it on the ballot next year: Yes for Independent Maps–http://independentmaps.org/
Comment by Susiejones Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:21 am
It’s the staffer-lobbyist combo which would have more power over legislation — or even an animal like ALEC, that simply writes legislation by-passing both, and finds an inept legislator to sponsor it.
RonO: interesting argument, but it relies on the assumption that more turnover will automatically provide diverse experience among reps. I would counter that limiting terms could limit those who would choose to run to certain backgrounds.
Wider knowledge gained over time by legislators might not be critical, but it is undoubtedly valuable, since every vote counts equally.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:30 am
I’ve never understood why one group of citizens should be able to disenfranchise another group of citizens — and take away the rights of citizenship of other individuals — simply because they don’t like the results of others’ choices.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:40 am
Term limits can be an effective way to bring new people into the process and make the job of legislator less of a career and more citizen responsive. The people who hate term limits the most are the career politicians. That alone should be a good reason to support term limits.
Comment by Downstater Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:40 am
==I pretty much want term limits for every elected office. ==
Your wish has already been granted. They are called elections.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:41 am
IMHO, the most effective reform would be to revise the way districts are drawn, so that they are drawn independently, and thus much more likely to be competitive. there would still be attempts to game the system, but it would have to be better than what we have. just think if madigan had to run in a competitive district.
Comment by langhorne Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:48 am
–Term limits can be an effective way to bring new people into the process and make the job of legislator less of a career and more citizen responsive.==
You’re quite the social engineer. What’s preventing these things happening now?
Why do you get to tell certain individuals they can’t serve in office? Why do you get to tell groups of citizens they can’t vote for a certain person?
I’d prefer the good people of Tennessee didn’t send Rep. Fincher to Congress, but it’s not my call, nor should it be.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:49 am
RonOglesby hit the nail in his comment above. We draw districts to protect incumbents and then insist on term limits, which is an intrusion on the ability of the electorate to choose their representatives. A better idea is to draw sensible, geographically-defined boundaries, which would lower the bar to entry for anyone wishing to challenge incumbent officeholders.
Comment by Steve Reick Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:55 am
Looks like Prof. Mooney and Capt Fax are bamboozled on this money. Not too surprising for the Professor, but shocked the Capt. would get caught.
Show of hands…who believes any lobbo would admit to becoming more powerful after term limits.
Mr. Shea, Mr. McPike please put your hands down.
Afraid the Mooney Doctrine does not hold water.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:12 pm
Term limits provides the OPPORTUNITY for change, it doesn’t guarantee it.
Both the military and major corporations understand the need of not letting people stagnate in the same position forever. We understand the need to move good people up to higher areas of responsibility. And no one seriously argues how term limits on the Presidency has ruined America.
Of course, it is one of many reforms that are needed. Redistricting and election reform generally are certainly among those. Somehow restoring the idea the public service is a noble profession and that good people should get involved in it. (i.e. counteract that rapid and massive decline in confidence and increase in cynicism in government, which is well deserved)
But the best reform is an engaged citizenry who actively seeks out candidates for office and figures out where they stand instead of the system we have now where campaigns have to spend millions trying to reach voters who don’t want to be reached and convince them with 30 second BS tv ads.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:22 pm
=== I’d prefer the good people of Tennessee didn’t send Rep. Fincher to Congress, but it’s not my call, nor should it be ===
I’d prefer the good people of MJM’s district didn’t send him to the Illinois house, but it’s not my call……..
There is no election that could be held where I could vote for a different “most powerful legislator in the GA”. My elected rep has no chance to bring legislation to the floor since MJM won’t call it. Bills he doesn’t support frequently don’t see the light of day.
I’m not saying term limits should be put into place. Humans are quite capable of adjusting their behavior to adopt to changes in their environment. But that doesn’t mean I will be sanguine about it.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:38 pm
The reason it even gets debated is that it’s difficult to get rid of bad ones who affect all of us; case in point, the trilogy of Savage/Reynolds/JJJ, a multi-generational legacy of government gone awry. There are others. I support term limits with the caveat of the term being reasonable i.e. 10-12 years. I wouldn’t mind seeing State Reps run every 4 instead of every 2 years. We’ve had people serving who are literally “incompetent medically or physically” to do so. To say “if that’s what people elect then so be it” loses me on the other side of the argument. There’s middle ground here.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:41 pm
Dealing with gerrymandering would be the ideal means of addressing this issue, as @RonOglesby notes.
Barring that, term limits offer a reasonable second option.
Since those who have been in office 20 or 30 + years are those in control of the redistricting process, hopes for redistricting reform seem bleak.
It is rare that those in power cede any, much less a portion, of that power.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:41 pm
–
It is rare that those in power cede any, much less a portion, of that power.
–
+1
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Right. We will have whole scores of teachers, firefighters, day camp directors who will suddenly be able to afford to take 8 years off from their jobs to run for office and serve.
Before you tell me that being the state rep or senator is part time anyway, and that Madigan et. al. are doing just fine, why can’t a teacher do it… they would lose seniority, advancement, etc. in their current occupations just for the time they would be off payroll when serving! They can’t afford to, as Thad Kousser talks about in his research in the many states.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Then I assume these teachers that are now liberated and able to run for the legislature (or fill in whatever average occupation that is always mentioned)
they all have fellow teacher friends, making on average, oh, $30K a year who will suddenly be able to give them $500 to $1,000 to provide the start up money that all campaigns need?
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 12:58 pm
Chris Mooney = Spot.On.
Bruce, dump the tired old term limit talking points - which you wouldn’t get passed anyway - and focus on explaining your SOLUTIONS to the real challenges this state is facing.
Comment by Left Leaner Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 1:05 pm
Look at how well term limits have been working in Missouri. Those dopes passed a nullification law.
Comment by Ray del Camino Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 1:12 pm
===I support term limits with the caveat of the term being reasonable i.e. 10-12 years. ===
Unless you plan on passing your own petition, you’ll have to deal with the only plan out there right now, and that’s Rauner’s.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 1:23 pm
===I support term limits with the caveat of the term being reasonable i.e. 10-12 years. ===
-Unless you plan on passing your own petition, you’ll have to deal with the only plan out there right now, and that’s Rauner’s.-
Because it’s impossible to ever amend a policy or law, you know, ever?
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 1:32 pm
If you want to shake up the process instead of term limits eliminate primaries and institute instant run off voting, you would help get rid of partisan politics, get more alternative candidates such as Libertarians and Greens.
Comment by independent Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 2:38 pm
Good point Rich.
IMHO, there are dumb crooks and smart crooks, the dumb crooks, like Blago and Smith, get caught. The smart crooks know how to avoid appearances of corruption and live long political lives. IMHO, Illinois a few of them, well maybe more than a few. Would term limits help in curbing this corruption? Probably not… But what else has worked…
IMHO, The reason we are talking about this issue is our disgust with the current political environment. If all our politicians were honest, I don’t believe term limits would be an issue.
Comment by Rufus Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 2:43 pm
You can’t tell me that in a location where you have a permanent ruling class, if you throw the ruling class out, you won’t get complete and utter chaos.
This is one change Illinois can’t handle, especially in its economic situation.
Comment by Kilroy Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 2:51 pm
Thirty-seven states have term limits. Has any state that has enacted term limits in, say, the last 70 years decided they made a terrible mistake and rescinded them? If not, that tells you something.
And I’m sure that a U of I prof looking forward to a very generous university retirement is entirely objective and has no particular interest in preserving the status quo.
Also –
“In the House, committees are very tightly controlled by leadership”
Let’s see, who is the leader? And how long has he been in office?
Seems like a good argument for term limits.
“the currently strong Illinois governorship”
He IS talking about Illinois, right? So Quinn dominates the impotent duo of Madigan and Cullerton? Please.
Comment by Anony Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 3:38 pm
===So Quinn dominates===
Obviously not.
The governor’s office is constitutionally strong, just like the Chicago mayor’s office is technically weak. That inherent imbalance forces legislative leaders and the mayor to build political organizations strong enough to compete. After awhile, they often do more than just compete.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 3:43 pm
To those that keep bringing up teachers and fireman… there more non political folks out there besides them. Nurses electricians, IT guys like me, truck drivers , doctors, restaurant managers, construction supes, purchasing directors, sign makers, small business owners…. and that is just in my family!
Not all jobs are teachers and cops with their promotion andunion rules.
Comment by ronoglesby Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 3:56 pm
IMHO, Rauner doesn’t care one bit about term limits. He’s simply following the Rove playbook. When he’s the Republican candidate in November (which he no doubt is positive he will be), he simply wants something on the ballot that will boost Republican turnout. I give him bonus points for planning so far ahead.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 4:00 pm
@Word -
Your 11:40 post hit the nail on the head. Term limits in Illinois are to deprive the voters of 22nd House District the right to elect whom they please. Same thing in Nebraska with Ernie Chambers or California with Willie Brown.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 4:28 pm
- Anony - Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 3:38 pm:
=== Thirty-seven states have term limits. ===
For legislative term limits, the figure is 15 states, as of January 2013
=== Has any state that has enacted term limits in, say, the last 70 years decided they made a terrible mistake and rescinded them? ===
Yes, Utah and Idaho. By legislative action
In Massachusetts, Washington, Wyoming and Oregon legislative terms limits were struck down by the courts.
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legisdata/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx#Repeals
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 4:49 pm
36 states impose term limits on the office of governor.
Given my view that the legislature should be the dominant branch in a republic (small “r”) executive officer term limits are somewhat more acceptable to me than legislative term limits.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 4:53 pm
Ron, if you had read my post completely, you would have seen that I said insert most working class professions.
So, as an IT guy, or a purchasing director, or whatever else you mentioned, you have enough colleagues to raise the cash to get your race started?
In the states with term limits, guess who runs? For the most part: Lawyers, and the same types of occupations we have now. In other words, those that can afford to take themselves out of their careers for a while, can take the time off and spend time campaigning.
Now you’ll say campaigns will be less expensive with limits. Fat chance. They are even more expensive with open seat races all the time. This was true before superpacs. It’s even more true now.
Term limits promise everything. And don’t deliver.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 5:26 pm
One more thing - as to the constant mention of teachers and firefighters, if you object to those occupations always being mentioned, talk to the term limits proponents!
those are the 2 types of as American as Apple Pie types of professions that term limits advocates said would run if the states in which they were promoting the concept to sell it to voters. You know, “real” American professions, unlike all those awful lawyers that keep messing things up.
Now, it may very well be that people that decide to get a MA in Public Policy and study this extensively aren’t part of the “real America” either. One thing I can say for certain (from personal experience) is that they are probably certifiably crazy. Ugh.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 5:40 pm
== Has any state that has enacted term limits in, say, the last 70 years decided they made a terrible mistake and rescinded them? ==
Most seasoned observers in both parties believe Quinn’s Cutback Amendment made the House less deliberative and more a one-man show. The fact that we haven’t repealed the Cutback Amendment doesn’t prove that it has been beneficial.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 5:42 pm
@low level
I think you mistake me for a term limit advocate, which I am not. I am an anti-gerrymandering guy myself.
I just find it funny that most people commenting here refer to those in the public sector like that is all there is…
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 6:09 pm
Another myth that Mooney didn’t bust is the effect of term limits of finances and budgets, painted by term limit advocates as one of constrained budgets and responsible spending.
“We fi nd no consistent, systematic evidence that term limits signi cantly decreased spending (as suggested by commentators and advocates) or increased spending (as suggested by prior academic research).”
http://www.personal.psu.edu/ljk20/termlimits.pdf
Other research shows that “short-term fiscal outlooks and loss of experienced legislators produced by term-limit turnover lead to poor fiscal conditions. Myopic legislators may avoid tough fiscal decisions, while inexperienced legislators may be ill-equipped to develop sound fiscal policy.”
http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/08/1532673X12461270.abstract
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 6:13 pm
I feel like this is the same get ahead of the story mentality as the fear mongering about reapproving the state constitution. Term limits are a great idea. The notion of a professional legislator has proven ineffective. If you look at states with term limits you see new thinking. Occasionally the bosses need to be shuffled out.
Comment by Biker Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 7:01 pm
Bingo, Precinct Captain. You’re on good paper.
Ron- Well, that’s nice. Although I did detect an anti-public sector union sentiment in an earlier post of yours. Perhaps the wording of Bruce’s amendment can further restrict the voters ability to vote for the candidate of their choice by eliminating anyone represented by a collective bargaining agreement in the public sector? So, 8 years and no public sector union represented people. Doctors, IT guys, that’s all good?
*Now I will say, it is very possible that I would support absolutely no one who was crazy enough to study something like public policy. Absolutely 0 terms for them. How did wordslinger put it that time? Being a higher educated working class person? Yes - exactly. Nutty people.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 7:13 pm
>One point that particularly caught my eye is the apparently false belief that term limits shift power to lobbyists…
Lobbyists despise term limits and are not strengthened. Their job depends on developing trust with lawmakers and educating them on issues. With term limits, lobbyists must work ever harder at this, as members and leaders come and go.
That’s an interesting point and probably spot on.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 7:24 pm
@Low level,
not all. Just showing that not all people work in jobs such as described. What 10-15% of the work force now. So using them as an example to further an argument that working people cant run for office because of work reasons is a little silly.
There are lots of bad reasons for term limits without using teachers and firemen promotion possibilities as a negative argument.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 8:26 pm
@ biker - not in the least. Simply sharing what has occurred in the states with term limits. There is 20+ years of research on the topic after the large wave of state enactments in the early 90s.
Comment by low level Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 8:38 pm
Rauner should show he’s serious about term limits by refusing to run for a first term. It’s not too late. Bill Daley proved that.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 10:06 pm
How has our government been running without term limits?
Comment by DuPage Rep Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 11:13 pm