Term limits for better and worse.

• Author: Hansen, Karen
• Position: Includes related articles on term limits movement and on citizen initiatives regarding term limits - Part two

Loss of institutional memory, collegiality and influence, too little time to learn the ropes is this the legacy of term limits? Yes, say opponents. Not necessarily so, argue proponents. This second of three parts explores both sides.

The 1990s' prescription for government change through term limits is a kind of revolving door democracy: People are on their way out as soon as they come in.

Who knows yet if term limits will deliver on their promise of a more representative and effective democracy? What is certain is that the citizens of 20 states believed they could. During the 1990s they voted to limit the number of years elected officials could serve in office at the state level. The margin of victory in some states was slim - 4 percentage points in California and Washington. In others it was a landslide - more than 40 percentage points in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada and Wyoming.

America's experiment with limiting terms - an idea originally aimed at Congress - is being conducted in the states. By the 1998 election, term limits will have a stronger grip on the country as they take effect in seven of the 20 states that approved them. So for now, the debate continues: Will term limits make representative government more effective? Or will rookies without experience be running the state? Will legislatures be able to enact a responsible budget, hold the bureaucracy accountable, keep the staff in check, solve problems and pursue "good government"?

Time will tell.

ALREADY FEELING THE EFFECTS

Today, only eight out of 49 house speakers and nine out of 50 senate presiding officers held that office just seven years ago. Eighty-six percent of legislative leaders have left their leadership positions since 1990.

In 1996, 920 of the nation's legislators decided not to seek reelection. In 1994, the numbers were even higher - 1,154 sat out the election. The repercussions of term limits were felt before they even went into effect.

The complexion of legislative institutions is different today with term limits looming. Term limits have forced positive change: new structures that allow freshman members to serve on prime committees, enhanced training for new members to ensure a more thorough understanding of state policy issues, staff training in professionalism and ethics, lowered barriers to leadership positions.

But legislative leaders in states with term limits give a sobering view of what term limits may mean to legislatures: no institutional memory in elected officials; discord among legislators who try to maneuver for leadership positions; disrupted balance of power in which the executive branch becomes, by default, stronger; state agencies where career officials need merely outwait lawmakers with whom they disagree; special interest lobbies more capable of wielding influence over inexperienced lawmakers; a loss of rural and minority influence.

Members reportedly vie openly for the few leadership positions, and relations among members are far less cordial in virtually all of the 20 states with term limits.

"There is a clear loss of collegiality and much more contentiousness between the House and Senate," says Arizona House Minority Leader Art Hamilton. "I have been a leader for 17 years, the former speaker was a leader for 14 years. There is a better balance between the majority and minority because of our seniority. The balance between the parties is going to change under term limits."

Former Michigan House Speaker Paul Hillegonds voices a similar concern:

"There is much more jockeying for leadership and much less collegiality. Several freshmen already see themselves as speaker of the House and are working the lobbying community for financial support and influence. This has an impact on the leader's ability to hold his caucus together and work on consensus building."

Former South Dakota Representative Michael Wagner says the caucuses are being "torn apart" in his state because of members' leadership aspirations.

"It's an issue politicians don't like to talk about - it's back room politics - but the way legislatures work is through consensus and cooperation," he says. "Term limits are ripping that very fabric."

Lawmakers report that senior members are saddened - some are angry - by the loss of collegiality. There is a frustrated middle class that assumed they would be leaders and find they won't be. The younger class, which originally thought term limits would provide more opportunities, are sobering as they realize how inexperienced they are.

A SHIFT IN POWER

Term limits will shift the balance of power within a legislature.

"Rural areas have to compete against numbers now," says Nevada Senator Ray Rawson. The less populous parts of the state, which already send fewer people to the capital than urban areas, can no longer rely on the seniority of their members to influence issues of importance to rural citizens, Rawson explains.

"Rural voters need to understand what this does to them. It cuts their head off - they're out of the process. You can no longer achieve power by longevity, knowledge and expertise." he says.

Lawmakers predict that term limits will severely constrain the power and deliberative role of the legislature in ways that were not anticipated during the public discussion of the idea.

They worry that institutional and policy memory will be erased; that the executive branch, lobbying community and legislative staff will become more powerful players; that leaders will have difficulty building consensus which up to this point has been the essential ingredient in passing legislation; that leadership races will be contentious, setting a negative tone for the session; that defining missions, setting goals, providing oversight will be sacrificed; that planning for the long term will be difficult if not impossible.

They worry that individual lawmakers will be more independent of their party leadership and less predictable on various issues and that special interests will find an opening to influence leadership and primary races when candidates support their specific agendas.

They worry that citizens won't be able to return to office the men and women who have done a good job for their constituency and that it will be more difficult to know whether or not...