Government: Time's up for Term Limits

In 1990, I voted for term limits.

Now, 20 years later, the experiment has failed. My disgust in 1990 has become despair in 2010, as the [California] Legislature’s performance has worsened. The failure may be ascribed to four reasons.

First, while limits opened up seats for capable newcomers, they also booted out valuable incumbents. For example, Kuehl replaced Terry Freidman, who was himself a relative newcomer. Friedman was a bright, thoughtful legislator and could have served with distinction — and increasing experience — for years. Instead, faced with term limits, Freidman successfully ran for a seat on the Superior Court, where he served for 15 years. The caricature of an invulnerable, out-of-touch lifer who deserved to be forced out was often false.

...

Second, while legislators are forced out, lobbyists and staff remain. The result is that term limits are a hoax: California still has entrenched political leaders, but, as lobbyists and staff, they are even less accountable than incumbents.

Third, the theory that term limits would foster more independence and less partisanship appears unsupported by evidence. Republican and former legislator Tom Campbell has spoken of his own survey of legislators’ voting records. Contrary to the theory of limits, legislators in their last terms, when they are not running again, are more likely to adhere to the straight party line. Certainly in California, post-term-limits legislators appear to be more partisan than their predecessors.

Fourth, California’s problems, particularly budget crises, have been years in the making. Decisions made years or even decades ago — enacting an automatic cost-of-living adjustment, foregoing revenue, creating an unfunded mandate and so forth — all have contributed to today’s deep, structural problems. However, legislators who cast the key votes years ago have been termed out and are not being held accountable for their misdeeds. California needs to plan for the long term, but term limits discourage such planning.

Even Republicans’ hopes that terms limits would benefit them have been dashed. The state’s Senate and the Assembly each have fewer Republicans now than in 1990.

Finally, maybe the need for term limits has abated. To the extent that gerrymandered districts unfairly benefited incumbents, the neutral redistricting initiative approved by voters in 2008 eliminated this benefit

From Time's up for Term Limits by John S. Caragozian, June 27, 2010, at miller-mccune.com.