Term Limits Should Go…But Not That Way
Term limits are all over the news in Nebraska these days. In 2000 56% of Nebraska voters decided to amend the state constitution to limit state senators to two consecutive four-year terms. The measure’s effects will be felt for the first time in 2006 when approximately half of our state senators will be term limitted out of office. Some of the state senators have already arranged to move on to other things. Some have no stated plans beyond the capitol. And a few angry souls are taking action: they are taking term limits to the courts.
A lot has been said and written about term limits these past few days, and much more will be written as the court battle rages on. I want to share with you a few of my thoughts.
Term limits are redundant.
As term limit opponents like to say, we already have term limits. They’re called elections. I
t may not be the most creative catch phrase ever concocted, but it is accurate. Term limits are redundant.
Many term limits supporters like term limits because they force new blood into the capitol on a regular basis. Term limits also help prevent so-called “career politicians” from setting up shop in the legislature. Setting aside whether new blood is inherently a good thing and career politicians are inherently bad, the polls are perfectly acceptable for accommodating the former and preventing the latter. Which proves that the public doesn’t necessarily want new blood, nor are they necessarily opposed to career politicians. Otherwise, why do the same people get re-elected over and over?
Clearly the public, in general, likes the individuals it elects. The new blood argument for term limits is a red herring.
Term limits are over-eager.
Many Nebraskans voted for term limits for one reason: Ernie Chambers. Nebraskans hate Ernie Chambers. They love to hate him. It’s practically a state pasttime, behind only Husker football and talking about the weather.
There’s just one problem. Chambers’s constituents love him. They adore him. They’ve re-elected him over and over again. And for good reason: not only does Chambers give a strong voice to a politically weak constituency, he is also the state’s most savvy lawmaker. Whether his opponents like it or not, Chambers is absolutely brilliant. Slightly crazy, and brilliant.
It’s a common theme in term limits votes across the country. Supporters of term limits don’t like your elected representative, but they can’t vote him out since they aren’t part of his constituency. So they play dirty. They sacrifice their own representative—somebody who they may even like—in order to get rid of yours. Gather enough like-minded people together and you’ve got yourself a constitutional amendment passed by initiative. Sure you’ve thrown out the baby with the bath water, but so what? At least you got rid of that stupid legislator from down the road.
But boy, you sure do miss your representative. She was really good for her constituents, wasn’t she?
Term limits are undemocratic.
We vote for our state senators by district for a reason. I get to elect somebody to represent me, you get to elect somebody to represent you, and those people go fight on our respective behalfs in the capitol. That is the basic definition of a representative democracy. Term limits conflict with that definition. They are undemocratic. Term limits unfairly limit my options at the polls. Why shouldn’t I be able to select the same representative three elections in a row? He did such a good job the first two terms, I’d like to see him go another round. Or ten. I’m already sacrificing a portion of my democratic rights by taking part in a representative democracy. Now you say that I can’t choose a qualified, excellent candidate because he is, in essence, over-qualified?
Term limits are constitutional.
Early indications are that a few term limitted state senators are going to take Nebraska’s term limits law to the courts, arguing that they violate the United States Constitution. Specifically, the argument goes, term limits violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. I’m not sure how term limits supposedly violate those amendments; the senators’ legal strategy is not yet clear.
Regardless of their strategy, they are wrong. State-level term limits do not violate the letter or spirit of the United States Constitution. It is within a people’s righ
ts to establish reasonable restrictions on the qualifications required to hold various public offices in their state. Term limits may be bad law, but they are not unconstitutional.
What the anti-term limits senators are doing is going to cause more harm than good to their cause. Term limits were passed by the people, and they must be repealed by the people. The senators’ attempted end-run around the collective will of the people will foment not sympathy and understanding, but fury, misunderstanding, and revolt. The senators will argue that the will of the state’s voters should not be able to trump the will of their constituents. In that they are correct. It is a tragedy that a group of individuals outside my district get to unreasonably restrict who can represent my district. But it’s not unconstitutional in this context.
Term limits are stupid ignorant.
Term limits supporters thrive on ignorance. They ignorantly believe that getting rid of Ernie Chambers is a good thing. They ignorantly believe that “new blood” in an elected body is inherently good, and that “career politicians” are people to be reviled. They are ignorant of the power they grant to unelected career bureaucrats, lobbyists, and advisors. They are ignorant of the virtue of a strong institutional memory that endures over decades, rather than having to be renewed every four to eight years. They are ignorant of just how few high-quality potential legislators are able and willing to serve in the Unicameral.
Not all of the ignorance lies with term limits supporters, of course. The anti-term limits senators taking their case to the court on ridiculous grounds are certainly displaying a remarkable amount of ignorance, with a surprising amount of public relations ignorance leading the way. Not to mention the fact that they should already be five years into their term limits revocation campaign by now, not a mere five days.
Term limits are not the end of the world. But I do fear the long-term implications of term limits, especially the unforeseen consequences that are unique to our Unicameral legislature. In 2009 we will be forced to deal with the effects of a less-qualified, less-experienced legislature more prone to mistakes and to influence by unelected outsiders. There are some heavily washboarded roads ahead for Nebraska. It could be a bumpy ride.
The Comments
beerorkid December 1, 2005 at 11:46am
I work in the legislature. I listened to every day of last years session. I see what the experienced ones can accomplish. I have seen the noobs fumble.
The few who know how everything works rule that place. Ernie is like a conductor of a symphony. He can work around any BS law they throw at him to stop him. It is awesome to watch.
EC does cause a few headaches. But, he really does care about his state. He fights BS legislation, he calls out the ones who are only pleasing the lobbyists, he is owned by no party, he serves his people well. And he makes me laugh almost every day he is in the chamber.
Watching noobs flail was painful. I learned how things worked by just watching. Some of the new guys had to be corrected continiously on proper procedure.
I am worried that many puppets will get in there. We all know the party line vote overides the quality of the canidate. They claim to be a non partisan legislature, but it reaks of party line influence. We are paying so little for the duty of being a Senator that only independantly wealthy individuals can take the job. It will become more conservative, more pro business, less pro people, a far cry from represenative goverment. It will be how much money lobbyists can donate to get their way.
I supported term limits before I worked here, I bought into the falacies. I Thought they were very well paid old white men. I was duped.
Mr. T December 1, 2005 at 9:08pm
Well put beerorkid. As has been quoted to me by an insider at the unicam, Chambers knows the rules better than any other Senator there. That’s definitely a reason why he is so effective and represents his constituents so well. Although I can understand the appeal behind term limits generally, in the big picture it will be an interesting lesson learned for the state when a legislature full of (well meaning but inexperienced) noobs starts getting pushed around by the executive and lobbyists. Example: Florida.
Henry S December 29, 2005 at 4:08pm
Term limits are meant to keep graft and coruption OUT of State and Federal Government. As the old saying goes:
“POLITICIANS & DIAPERS
BOTH NEED TO BE CHANGED,
AND FOR THE SAME REASON”
Donn Dunlap February 27, 2006 at 8:57am
There are folks running for unicam seats that can’t even read a legislative bill. I sincerely hope that lots of the aides stick around to act as seeing eye dogs for for what’s coming.