I will never, ever, understand the appeal of term limits. Thankfully, the gimmick’s appeal has faded considerably since its glory days in the mid ’90s, but we’re still dealing with the consequences of this foolish endeavor. (For a detailed review of term limits’ faults, I’d strongly recommend Vic Kamber’s book on the subject.)
Replacing experienced public officials with amatuers has been a national problem, particularly at the state level, for about a decade now, and with time comes an opportunity to study the effects of the policy. In California, like elsewhere, term limits have been a failure.
The first real academic study of the effect of term limits on California confirms the obvious: Term limits made the Legislature worse, not better.
Legislators now spend more time raising campaign money from special interests, the opposite of what term-limit supporters predicted. With only six years to serve in the Assembly and eight in the Senate, they devote ever more time to plotting their next political moves. They see no political benefit in learning the ins and outs of complicated state policy and trying to formulate long-term solutions to critical problems. Committees aren’t doing their job of weeding out lousy legislation because members don’t want to offend colleagues or special interests by voting against their bills.
Yep, short-sighted pseudo-populists insisted we embrace a solution to a problem that didn’t exist. Under the old system, when voters decided someone had served too many terms, they picked someone else. Those who earned voters’ trust stayed in office, gaining insight and experience that benefitted voters, their communities, and new lawmakers who could learn lessons from their veteran colleagues. This has been replaced by a system in which institutional knowledge cannot exist.
Now, in California and states like it, lawmakers are removed from office, whether their constutients want them to stay or not, because an artificial, government-imposed restriction on how long a lawmaker can serve in government has taken the decision out of voters’ hands. It’s a disaster.
Some might argue that legislative staffs can help make up the difference, serving for years and helping new lawmakers understand policy and process. The California example, however, shows that this isn’t even close to what happens in reality.
The valued professional legislative staff is mostly gone, killed in part by budget restraints imposed in 1990 and abetted by the constant turnover in membership. Aides now tend to come from the members’ political campaigns and have little interest in complex policy issues. Lobbyists play an increasing role in formulating legislation.
Those who see term limits in action first hand are explaining how and why this gimmick is failing voters.
For all the serious academic observations in the 107-page report from the Public Policy Institute of California (by respected University of California professors Bruce Cain and Thad Kousser), some of the most illuminating comments come from anonymously quoted lawmakers and former lawmakers. From a former senator: “There has been an essential evisceration of the hearing process…. Nothing dies anymore, and there are no rules.” Or, from an Assembly committee chair: The Legislature has become “a bill factory where members are looking to make a mark or leave a legacy or get district benefits.”
Term limits were supposed to be a way to empower regular people by eliminating their ability to vote for experienced representatives. It’s never made any sense and, as expected, it’s not working. We already have term limits in every way that matters — they’re called elections.