Senators Tarte, Daniel, and Rabin all have an idea – extend the terms for legislators in this state from two years to four.
Well, that should go over just great with voters. Such a change would require a constitutional amendment, which the people of this state would have to vote on. Amendment Two? Voters aren’t too keen on their politicians right now and don’t want to give them a break. Salary increases? Hell no. Term extensions? No way. Such a vote would essentially be a referendum on the legislature. And, regardless of party, voters don’t feel like “rewarding” their legislators.
But wait. The proposed amendment would also limit members of the legislature to four consecutive terms (that’s 16 years, with the extended terms). Term limits are always very popular with voters. Just look at all the politicians who promise to retire after X number of terms (and then go on to break their promise). This second provision would give the amendment a good chance of passing. The first provision, of term extensions, would be drowned out by debate over the second provision. And let’s face it, a cap of 16 years isn’t much of a term limit. How many legislators are there right now who have served more than 16 years? It’s got to be only a handful.
Now, some liberals out there might see this as a sneaky way for individual Republican legislators to prolong their stay in office. But is it really? There are some sound reasons for a four year term, at least for senators. Legislators spend a heck of a lot of time campaigning and fundraising and less on crafting public policy (again, some readers might see this as a good thing). One could say that a four-year term would make legislators less accountable; one could respond by saying it would allow them more time to focus on governing rather than electioneering.
And besides, a whole bunch of states have four-year terms for legislators and they seem to be doing fine. In fact, when it comes to legislative terms, North Carolina is an exception when it comes to two-year terms for both chambers of the legislature. Plus, if this was really a power-grab by Republican legislators, they would have the four-year terms start in 2018, which means that legislators would only be up for reelection during the midterms.
Right now, of course, this is just a proposal being floated around, and who knows what its chances of passage are. But it would have major political implications and bears watching. I think its chances of the voters passing it as a constitutional amendment are pretty good, should it ever go before them, especially if it’s framed as term-limiting and not term-extending.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
Such an amendment was put forth about 15-20 years ago, the 4-year term part, that is. The people voted it down. As ti term limits: we the people can limit terms every election. If you don’t like an incumbent vote against him/her.
I’m not for federal term limits, but having met with other young state legislators, I can see an attractiveness in state legislative terms limits. I think you can make them so “liberal” that it’s a term limit that still allows flexibility — in other words, say you use the 4 terms/16 year suggested, but also caveat that its per chamber. So you could do 16 in the House, and 16 in the Senate. I think 16 years (currently 8 terms) is a sensible term limit. I know you can find exceptions, like Joe Hackney for one, but I don’t think one sitting legislator in the same seat for several decades improves the NCGA any — also allows for more young people to reach for elective office.
Also, I don’t agree with your derogatory remark about salary increase… that’s just making the NCGA more representative. If you think the “best and the brightest” of the state will go to Raleigh for 13k a year, that just doesn’t make sense. Making a more livable salary that will increase the number of candidates who can spend X number of months in Raleigh a year (to include commuting and/or lodging, if you live a bit outside Raleigh..as in 80% of the state…) is just past due. City council folks make almost double a state legislator.
Do we really want to vote for a person who is willing to spend $100k for a job that pays $13k? What do you think is gonna happen with that scenario? I’d rather pay ’em well and get good ones. Or at least ones that aren’t looking to cash in “in other ways.”
Pay? Payment? First of all, based on the amount of ‘work’ done, which seems to be validating a prescribed process and the work is actually done by others I believe they are paid and reimbursed sufficiently. The position of part-time legislator does not warrant a raise. If these legislators feel they are making too little, well, perhaps it is time they returned to their main vocation; whatever that might be. They all seem to think that those who actually do the work are being compensated fairly according to the work they do since they haven’t gotten a raise in years; well, right back at ya. Just as an aside, that would be a matter to put on the November ballot, now wouldn’t it?
You’re not wrong Geek. Why WOULD anyone with a rational mind spend that kind of money to get a job that pays so little and subject themselves and their families to the microscope of public scrutiny to boot? It’s not about money.
Geek, for once I agree with everything you’ve had to say on this issue. North Carolina is far too wedded to the romantic Jeffersonian idea of the citizen legislator. Make it a paid position with a reasonable salary, and make them quit their current job to avoid conflicts of interest. And you’re right, having part time legislators means that they very often regulate the very industries they work in (see Justin Burr and Tom Apodaca’s fight about bail bondsman’s licencing last year).
As for term limits I agree again. Having had friends in the legislature I can tell you that they spend most of their first term just learning the terminology and procedural maneuvering required to get anything done in the General assembly. As for Mr Gilfus’ argument that we need to make more room for new guys to get elected I strongly disagree. If you want to be elected, successfully make the case that you’re better than the old guy. Otherwise I’d rather have a veteran representing my interests than a new guy who doesn’t know what he or she is doing. Making term limits so veterans have to ‘get out of the way for new blood’ makes no sense to me.
I won’t tell your friends, but I suspect over coffee we’d agree on more.
I’m a “lets have good gov’t” kinda guy. The rouble is that I have profound doubts on the ability of government to do more than the core duties at any level of gov’t.
So that immediately counts me out of what passes for modern liberalism. Having once been employed by them, I observed that every issues they cared about (and that is another matter, what issues they choose) was to be solved by a big, powerful, complex government program that they imaged would fix things.
I moved from a state with term limits on the legislators.
Gang, if you think that you’ve got losers now, wait until you get term limits. As it turns out, there IS a skill required to run a state. When you turn out those with the skills and knowledge in some misbegotten Jacksonian belief that “everyman” can be a Senator, what you get is chaos. Certainly the quality of the candidates, after a couple of rounds of term limits, is pretty grim, or at least it was in Michigan.
Worst yet — we all know (or should know) that the place is run by veteran staffers. Those are the people who actually are subject matter experts, who write the bills, who read the bills, who advise the elected. When you have long-term politicians, you have long-term gigs for the staffers. And when you have short term limits, you get a mass exodus of those folks to other spots with long term gigs.
So I vote “no” based on my observation that it does NOT do any good, and does a bit of harm.
Hell, the comments on here prove my point! What happened when the veteran Dems were replaced by a bunch of noob GOP people, including leadership that had never done much leading? Tell me — have you see the results of pure inexperience??
So there — if you build such a churn into the system, be it Dem-favoring or not, you’re gonna get that chaos. And then you’ll be doing face-palms ’cause it will be YOUR noob legislators doing stupid stuff.