The third revolution.

• Author: Hansen, Karen
• Position: Term limits in state legislatures - Part 3

Term limits have forced legislatures to change in many positive ways. But what will the long-term effects be? This is the third of three parts.

Term limits are nothing short of a revolution in state legislatures. They are as sweeping a change as the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court decision in 1962 and the modernization movement of the late 1960s. They will indeed once again revolutionize the way legislatures do business.

This late 20th century experiment in democracy has yet to be put to the full test. California and Maine are the farthest along - term limits will go into effect completely in their legislatures by the next election. And by 2007 all 20 states with term limits will have implemented the voters' desire to limit their representatives' terms in office.

"Term limits clearly set up two classes of legislatures," says William Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures. "Those with term limits and those without."

Term limits are as significant a defining feature as a state's size, its population, its economy and whether it has a full-time or citizen legislature, according to Pound.

The possible enduring effects of term limits trouble legislative observers. Experiences in Maine, Oregon and California already point to procedural difficulties, a slower-working institution, little confidence in turning leadership over to inexperienced members, less deliberation in committees.

Legislative leaders in states with term limits paint a sobering view of what they believe term limits will bring to legislatures: no institutional memory in elected officials; discord among legislators who vie for leadership positions; a disrupted balance of power in which the executive branch becomes stronger by default; state agencies where career officials simply outwait lawmakers with whom they disagree; special interest lobbies more capable of influencing inexperienced legislators; a loss of rural and minority party influence. And, most serious, an inability to deal with the really tough public policy issues in an economic crisis.

Although it is too early to tell what the long-term effects of term limits will be, some of the short-term consequences have been positive.

Over the past several years, leaders in states with term limits have initiated some of the most fundamental changes in legislative procedures in three decades. They are leaving a legacy of change they hope will ensure that the legislative branch runs efficiently and will give new members with little time to serve every opportunity to be effective lawmakers.

Arkansas and Michigan are two very different states. One is overwhelmingly Democratic, the other has a close partisan split. One is a rural state with a citizen legislature that meets four months every other year; the other is an industrial state with a full-time, professional legislature. As different as they are politically, economically and geographically, they did share one similarity: strong leaders, who in the face of term limits, made radical changes in their institutions that could serve as models for other states.

"It doesn't make any difference what I think about term limits," says Arkansas Speaker Bobby Hogue. "The people want them, the courts have upheld them, and now it's my job to make the House function, to reform the institution and obtain the best result."

Hogue, a 58-year-old insurance man who had served 14 years without ever sitting on a key committee, became speaker-designate in 1993 because most other senior members had already held the job. He has since implemented the most sweeping institutional changes in the history of his state. He became the first leader since 1940 to succeed himself as speaker. Clearly not bound by tradition, Hogue's vision for Arkansas was stability in the House, a strong leader who could "stand up to the governor, the Senate and the bureaucrats," and a process that would include freshmen members on major committees.

Forty-eight-year-old Paul Hillegonds was first elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 1978. He became co-speaker in 1992 and in 1994 became the first Republican speaker in Michigan since 1968. Now president of Detroit Renaissance, a corporate coalition concerned with revitalizing the city, he also changed his chamber radically in anticipation of term limits.

"With one of the most stringent limitations in the nation - six years in the House and eight in the Senate - I wanted to ensure that new members would be well-trained and effective," Hillegonds said.

CHANGING FOR THE FUTURE

Term limits were the impetus for Hogue's "team concept" in Arkansas. in 1993, Speaker Hogue created the Amendment 73 Committee to prepare the House for full implementation of term limits and strengthen the role of the speaker.

"Up until 1995, we didn't know what partisan politics were," Hogue said. "We didn't even have a House Democratic caucus." His Amendment 73 Committee changed the committee structure to four caucuses and 10 study committees with 20 members on each.

"It gave the sense that the entire 100-member House was involved in the changes. Before, only the senior members were."

He formulated rules changes that were adopted by the first full House caucus in the history of the state. Although some of the rules changes are already in place in other states, Hogue's goals were to open the House to participation by new members.

In Arkansas now, members of standing committees are elected by lawmakers in four caucuses that correspond to the state's four congressional districts, not by seniority - as they had been since the beginning of the Arkansas General Assembly.

The speaker of the House now appoints members to select committees; before, they were chosen by seniority. He also appoints all committee chairs and vice chairs, and no one can...