Introduction
Suggestions to restrict the terms of state legislators have been the subject of public policy discussion since 1990. This was the year when the initiatives by the citizens, touching upon the limitations of the terms of legislators, were accepted in California, Colorado and Oklahoma. Consequently, 18 other states accepted term restrictions, but in four ‑ Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming ‑ term, limits were then eliminated by supreme courts of the states. Currently, only fifteen states left with the term limits for state legislators.
Discussion
It is necessary to mention, that there are both opponents and followers of the elimination of term limits. Some consider this decision undemocratic, and it reveals the lack of faith to the voters, who has the right to vote for the preferred candidate. It is also stated, that term limits would make the elections more competitive (Harris, 2001).
On the other hand the restrictions of the terms, and consequently elections would increase the power of staffers and lobbyists, who often promote the interests of the minority. From this point of view, there should be no limits for the terms, as instead of arranging elections, it would be more effective to create the system of communication with voters, in order to analyze legislator’s mistakes, and provide changes to the legislation strategy.
Like many opponents of term limits, Napoli said they destroy the legislature’s institutional memory by replacing experienced lawmakers with untested rookies” This quote is acquired from a CNN politics news article. When the term is limited, the legislator does not have enough time to realize the large scale project, while the legislative system is not perfect, and requires essential modifications. The fact is that, the limited terms are featured with the lack of motivation to work. It is proved, that if the terms are limited by some particular term, the politician (president, governor, legislator and so on) does the minimum in the interest of the voters, if he knows, that the term is finishing, especially if the statute will not permit him to be elected once more (Peery, 1996).
In the case of unlimited terms, the legislator may be “fired” in the case of fail, or inability to defend the interests of the voters. Thus, the large-scale legislation project may be accomplished. In spite of the fact, that unlimited terms violate the balance of power in the root, the talented legislator will be able to keep this balance independently on the length of the term. It is necessary to emphasize, that the unlimited terms provide the powerful motivation to look into future, as the terms are not lifelong (only unrestricted), and the legislator would need to think about the possible consequences, but not only of the current situation, and the nearest future.
The unlimited terms also offer the opportunity to gather the best team, as the team factor is essential in every activity, independently, whether the person is able to cope with the obligations himself or not. It is argued, that the team would assist in performing the secondary activities, associated with legislature. These are the communication with population, congress, offering of new legislative projects. The team may be used for the brainstorm decision taking strategy, which sometimes appears to be the most effective (Weintraub, 2002).
It is argued, that the most obvious changes in lots of term limited legislature systems have to deal with leadership. Currently, leaders need lesser time to reach the top, than it was required before. However, the terms also shortened, and the legislators do not have enough time to gain the necessary experience, and consequently, there is not enough time to cope with the assignments properly. Before the implementation of term limits, these positions were often occupied by the experienced leaders, whose leadership skills were immense. Nowadays, there is no opportunity to grow more from the professional point of view, as the state legislator is among the highest job positions. Often, legislators occupy their positions for no longer than two years. It is obvious, that this term is not enough for gaining enough experience, authority and respect among the colleagues (State Legislatures, 2002).
It is necessary to mention, that term limits have had a varied impact on the Legislature’s policy consequences. The authors underline no impact on the width and complication of bills accepted into law, nevertheless this continuity may be the consequence of the Senate’s augmented tendency to amend Assembly bills. Applying the simple measures of legislative activity, it is necessary to emphasize that recently arranged programs to train members and staff do not improve a legislator’s “batting average”. That means, that his or her chances of accepting the bill ‑ although legislators who achieve that training tend to compose shorter bills that are aimed to modify the key sections, touching upon the very essence of the legislation.
Conclusion
In conclusion it is necessary to mention, that considering the fact that being a state legislator is an essential job, and therefore it requires significant experience. Replacing these people every few years absolutely demolishes the works and projects by previous legislators. These replacements make the experience of the previous legislators insignificant, as new people appear every particular period, depending on the terms, stipulated in the constitution.
Once again replacing them requires new legislators during their term to pick up the unfinished work, mess that previous legislators did not finish. They would have to re-evaluate and use their own working experience if any at all, causing lag in the system, where then their work is slowed unfinished or forgotten. I believe even professionals will not be able to compensate these changes in office this rapidly. Conflict between new and old, will constantly arise during this situation.
Finally, to restate the thesis, legislators do not automatically become professionals once they step into office. They may have acquired trust and other experience from others as a politician, but it does not express the fact they will act professionally and automatically accomplish, deal with difficult situations once in office. No matter, being a specialist or professional in this area requires failures and constant trial and error, to learn and therefore taking a great deal of time. Implementing a term limit will only prove that these sacrifices were done for nothing, only an endless chain of mistakes.
References
- Harris, Michael. “Policy Termination: The Case of Term Limits in Michigan.” International Journal of Public Administration 24.3 (2001): 323.
- “Idaho and Oregon Turn Legislator Term Limits Topsy-Turvy.” State Legislatures 2002: 8.
- Peery, George. “Transcending Term Limits.” State Legislatures 1996: 20+.
- Utter, Robert F., and Hugh D. Spitzer. The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.
- Weintraub, Daniel M. “The Trouble with Term Limits: The Public Seems Pretty Well Satisfied with Term Limits in California. They Don’t Even Seem to Mind Not Knowing Much about the Legislature. but That Doesn’t Mean Everything’s All Right.” State Legislatures 2002: 40