Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Study looks at how race of prez delegates may influence GOP primary voters here
Next Post: Mystery solved on Rauner’s whereabouts
Posted in:
* The BGA has an interesting look at term limits…
In Maine, a 2004 study from the NCSL and the University of Maine found that legislators elected under term limits “are more partisan and ideological than in the past.” That echoes an observation from Maine Gov. Paul LePage, himself a hard-edged Republican partisan, who nonetheless has lamented the polarizing effect of term-limits
Two decades of term limits delivered “young people with firm agendas” who are “hurting us in the long haul,” LePage complained in a 2014 speech in which he also lauded Martin’s long experience in the Maine legislature as an asset. Martin, LePage argued, was someone who “knew what worked and didn’t work.”
Michigan voters also easily adopted term limits in 1992, enacting caps of six years for House members and eight for state senators.
John Cherry, a Democrat from the Flint area, was among those impacted by the caps, leaving the legislature in 2002 after serving 20 years. But that same year he was elected Michigan’s lieutenant governor, a position he held until 2011. Cherry’s wife is now a state representative.
Cherry said the practical effect of term limits is twofold. First, he said, members elected to the House get to like the $71,685 annual salary and start to angle for a Senate run six years later when term limits kick in. Second, he said, restricting the time members can stay in the legislature hinders the ability or the inclination to address complex issues.
Exhibit A, he said, lay in a recent warning from a state commission appointed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder that Michigan faced a $59.6 billion infrastructure funding gap over the next 20 years. Cherry said the political aversion to raising taxes or fees to maintain roads and other services has convinced many lawmakers to “kick the can down the road” rather than jeopardize the loss of a good salary.
“Infrastructure has suffered more than anything else in Michigan because you have to raise fees to maintain it,” said Cherry, whose old senate district in Flint is now grappling with the cost of a crumbling water system that poisoned the city’s water supply. “The influence has shifted to lobbyists, and anything complex is made more difficult to deal with.”
I’m mostly an agnostic on term limits. They most certainly shift power to governors, which could be a real problem here considering some of the governor’s the voters have elected. On the other hand, there’s Speaker Madigan’s tenure. And short-timers may try to tailor their votes to help them land when they’re out of office, but legislators often do the same thing here. Just look at the former rosters of the utility-related committees, for example.
And everything else in the above excerpt could also be said of Illinois, which has no lawmaker term limits. The GA is far more partisan than it used to be and they’ve been forever kicking the can on important issues. I mean, we can’t even get a budget after two years of not really trying. And, of course, part of the reason for that is the lobbyists, which as I write this are attempting to kill off the Senate’s grand bargain attempt.
* Related…
* WTTW: A Portrait of Michael Madigan
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Study looks at how race of prez delegates may influence GOP primary voters here
Next Post: Mystery solved on Rauner’s whereabouts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Money quote:
= = “As a group, do term-limited states have better budgets or lower poverty rates or stronger economies? No,” said David Yepsen, the former director of Southern Illinois University’s Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. “It remains very popular, and it’s a good trumpeting tool to express outrage, but there’s no indication that these things work.” = =
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:41 am
Only on goveners!
Comment by Red rider Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:42 am
Term limits would be horrible for the legislature. It’s a political buzz word that makes foolish grandstanders feel good - but in reality are really bad public policy. If they want to impose them on leadership as part of the Grande Bargain, fine 10 years is enough for anyone to serve as a leader effectively.
But don’t do term limits for all legislators - it would be devastating - it would very clearly shift more power to lobbyists and the owners of the political parties (single source funders) - it would not result in better governance or better representation.
Can you imagine going to the hospital and telling the ER staff you don’t want the experienced doctors? You want the new ones who have never done this procedure before?
Comment by siriusly Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:42 am
While visiting with a state rep last year, we looked over a photo hanging in his office of the House chamber that was taken in 2011. We counted 61 members who were no longer serving — that means half the chamber turned over in five years. I’m not sure term limits would have worked much faster.
Now, the longevity of the speaker is a legit concern. That’s why I like the Cullerton-Radogno term limits on leadership proposal.
Comment by Telly Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:43 am
Has a term limits referendum ever not passed?
Also, what ever happened to Pat Quinn’s Chicago Mayor term limits referendum?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:44 am
Term limits in theory are popular because people don’t like politicians, as a general rule. (Although there’s a dichotomy in that which often plays out like “Politicians are all bad! Except my representative; he/she is okay. The rest are bad!”)
Term limits in practice frequently have the exact opposite of the intended effect: inexperienced lawmakers are more reliant on lobbyists and the party apparatuses. Writing legislation is difficult on its own; anticipating unintended side effects of legislation adds a whole level of complexity.
They seem a simple solution, but simple solutions to complex problems rarely work out to be solutions.
Comment by thunderspirit Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:46 am
The quote I posted is from the BGA article, not the Crain’s link:
http://www.bettergov.org/news/experts-no-evidence-term-limits-cure-political-dysfunction
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:46 am
How many people who scream for term limits either stay home on election day or vote for the incumbent? Would be worth finding out.
Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:49 am
I don’t like term limits.
I think that if I believe my state rep or state senator has been doing a good job for my district, I should be able to vote to re-elect her.
And I do think experience matters. Knowledge - how government works, how you get things done - is important.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:05 am
Sorry…facts and logic are not welcome in public policy discussions any longer.
If you try to take away a person’s right to bear arms, you are un-American. If you try to take away a person’s freedom of speech, you are un-American. If you try to take away a person’s freedom of religion or right to assemble, you are un-American. Most voters are unwilling to give up these rights. Why would those same voters voluntarily give up their right to elect whom they choose to represent them? I don’t get it!
Comment by Old Shepherd Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:06 am
My beef with term limits is not only the influence of lobbyist, but that it also puts the unelected inmates in charge of the asylum. At this point if we don’t like our officials we can vote them out. Try to get a staffer out who has been employed for decades; who has mastered the game and whom the constantly new reps are dependent on them to get their jobs done. That is a lot of power for someone who is not accountable to the voters.
Comment by Been there, done that Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:06 am
But don’t term limits attract the CEOs considering moving their companies to Illinois?
Comment by walker Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:13 am
Yeah, it would be WAY worse for Illinois if it had term limits. Just imagine. /s
Comment by Deft Wing Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:14 am
I am not big on term limits but what i would love to see is an anti nepotism candidate law. Guy from Michigan term limited passes job on to wife. We have enough of that going here already.Imagine if term limited every spouse kid and shirt tailed relative would be next in line
Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:15 am
==- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 9:44 am:==
http://www.sj-r.com/news/20160808/quinn-referendum-on-chicago-mayoral-term-limits-wont-make-november-ballot
I think Rich covered it here with a comment from Quinn’s organization, but maybe I was dreaming.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:18 am
If Term Limits will, in true actuality, bring in $7 billion to balance the sham Rauner budget AND an additional $11 billion to cover any and all backlogged bills… then Term Limits have a measure.
Right now, Term Limits are a want, not a measurably impactful fulcrum to a budget.
Sorry.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:21 am
I would like to see longer terms to break the constant campaign cycle, and term limits for leadership positions.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:26 am
=How many people who scream for term limits either stay home on election day or vote for the incumbent?= Many stay home because the perpetual incumbent is running unopposed.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:31 am
Blanket term limits is not a good idea. After serving 6 years in the Illinois General Assembly, a member is just hitting his or her stride. There is an immense amount to learn about Illinois and process, and it takes time to build personal contacts and relationships with fellow legislators and representatives of interested parties on the State and local level.
On the other hand, term limits for leaders, as the Senate amendment calls for, should be strongly supported. Whatever your views on Speaker Madigan, no legislator should ever be allowed to build such an entrenched power base. There is no doubt that a rotating GA leadership would mostly come from the more experienced, longer-serving members of the rank-and-file.
Comment by Quiet Sage Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:33 am
Just like in football, when you bring a linebacker to the line to strengthen against the run, you weaken yourself against the pass.
Legislative term limits happening more frequently bring up another legislative weakness we have experienced over time - lame ducks. More frequent lame duck voters not responding to the popular opinion, but instead following party politics will hurt every bit as much as term limits can help. Other than for leadership, our legislators have term limits- vote them out.
Comment by Gobblers Knob Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:38 am
No Deft Wing, it would be “even worse” than it is now, for a whole series of reasons noted above. Is that what you want?
Comment by walker Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:43 am
The arguments that staffers or lobbyists are even more empowered by term limits is (to me) silly. Look at what happens when new leaders come to power. President Cullerton brought in a new chief of staff and Secretary of the Senate, and Leader Radogno brought in a new chief of staff as well. I know the two people those two elevated were already on staff but it showed that even entrenched powers were willing to do something different. New leaders could easily shake up staff. Staffers come-and-go. What if Kyle McCarter had become Senate Republican Leader? He would have taken an ax to the staff and brought in an entirely new leadership staff. Someone like a Dan Biss could easily decide to go all-in and mold the Senate Dems in his political image if he were to become Senate President or Senate Dem Leader. And why would a Senator or Rep who can only serve 8 years be deathly afraid of lobbyists? The fact that people think lobbyists possess some Jafar-like hypnosis on elected officials is a bit silly. Senators and Reps can just as easily say “NO” as they can say “YES”.
Comment by Curl of the Burl Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:45 am
Very interesting data, and yet after digesting all this i’m still wishing we had term limits. Just as Chicago had the best basketball player in history with MJJ, we also have the longest serving political operative in all 50 states in MJM. Number 23 was motivated to pursue excellence in sports and as a result we all benefited. Not so much when you have a political operative for 30 plus years who is only motivated to stay in power.
Comment by Texas Red Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:46 am
It’s unpopular, but term limits are a horrible idea for Illinois. They’ve been a disaster for Missouri!
Comment by WSJ Paywall Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:46 am
The fact is that what they’re looking at - isn’t where the results are found. So these professor need to change their methodologies to find the benefits.
Don’t be fooled by their college titles, a professor comparing states based upon which has implemented term limits and which hasn’t, is doing it wrong. Compare the same states within the same economic context, before and after term limits.
Doing it correctly isn’t easy, but doing it wrong is wrong.
States that have enacted term limits have not rescinded them -quite the opposite. Two states that had term limits imposed upon them by voters, had their legislative branches wiggle out of them, which doesn’t count at all. Citizens have not voted term limits out. Only politicians in power have.
Term limits have been constitutionally applied to the presidency since 1953. 64 years. That’s not a fad.
I am no fan of Rauner, but I support term limits. They work as well as Direct Elections of US Senators have. More importantly, it makes citizens feel more trust towards their governments at a time when trust is in government is at a near nil.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 10:49 am
“Also, what ever happened to Pat Quinn’s Chicago Mayor term limits referendum?”
1) https://capitolfax.com/2016/08/08/todays-number-20000/
2) I was asked to sign a ‘petition’ calling for a Chicago mayoral term limits referendum only two days ago.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 11:00 am
Term limits don’t give representatives a stake in the future. In a very short time they don’t have anything to lose.
Comment by NoGifts Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 11:24 am
Thought it was interesting that when term limit were enacted to go after a certain person (John Martin of Maine & Vern Riffe of Ohio, both mentioned in the article, and Ernie Chambers of Nebraska & Willie Brown of California, both not mentioned), the person is a Democrat.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 12:15 pm
I’m also an agnostic on this. What needs fixing is the maps. And Illinois has a strong need to limit constitutional officers to two terms.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 12:16 pm
–Yeah, it would be WAY worse for Illinois if it had term limits. Just imagine. /s–
Meh, Deft Wing, you have to admit, even the most shameless of tukkus-kissing hacks go away sometimes after they’ve completely humiliated themselves and their family.
Just not for good, apparently.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 2:37 pm
–But don’t term limits attract the CEOs considering moving their companies to Illinois?–
Dozens of them. The governor crisscrossed the country linin’ them up on the sly.
That has to be true, because he said it.
He wouldn’t just make that up, would he? Because that would be lying.
http://www.sj-r.com/opinion/20160402/bernard-schoenburg-rauner-dozens-of-businesses-on-way-if-only-
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 2:53 pm
==But don’t term limits attract the CEOs considering moving their companies to Illinois?==
We may welcome job creators who are excited by term limits, but I wouldn’t want to shake hands with one.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 22, 17 @ 7:40 pm