Term limits: false hope or cure? - Cover Story

Nation's Business, Nov, 1991 by Stuart Rothenberg

You might find yourself facing this political situation: The U.S. representative from your area has never met a payroll and is much more interested in handing out your tax dollars to special-interest groups than in easing government burdens on small business. Seeking change, you approach someone who could represent your views forcefully and effectively.

Will that individual run? No. Chances of winning are too slim, you are told. The incumbent uses the office to generate political support that assures re-election and the continuation of the cycle.

Or: You might be represented in Congress by someone who reflects your views and those of other entrepreneurs and is gaining the experience and influence needed to turn those views into public policy.

You want that individual to be representing you in the next century. But your incumbent is barred from re-election, and you're worried that the new member won't be as effective for a while.

Those are two sides of an issue that is rapidly moving to the forefront of public-policy debate in America--whether there should be limits on the number of terms that can be served by members of Congress and state legislatures.

The issue has developed out of frustration in the grass roots over the failure of the national government to deal with such basic problems as the economic slowdown, budget deficits, runaway health-care costs, inadequate schools, and crime.

Taking the initiative, voters in California, Colorado, and Oklahoma have imposed cutoffs on how many terms state legislators can serve. While Colorado's action applies also to U.S. senators and representatives, that aspect is being questioned on the ground that any such change requires an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

An amendment requires approval of two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states. Congress must call a convention to amend the Constitution if the legislatures of 34 states request it.

Because a massive grass-roots campaign would be needed to prevail upon Congress to approve an amendment affecting itself so drastically, the principal activity on terms limits thus far has been aimed at passing restrictions in individual states.

Advocates of limits see the state campaigns as part of a growing web that eventually will extend to Congress.

This month, citizens in the state of Washington are to vote on term limits for both state legislators and members of Congress, and the outcome could affect that state's most visible member of Congress, House Speaker Thomas Foley.

Votes on term limits could take place in up to a dozen more states in the next two years. Term-limit movements are under way in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Activity in several other states could lead to the launching of such movements.

There are many variations on the specific limits on terms of service and on how they should be applied to those now serving.

In regard to duration, one of the most frequently discussed suggestions would set a maximum of 12 years for congressional terms--two six-year terms for senators and six two-year terms for representatives.

How far will the term-limitation movement spread? How successful will it be? Officeholders on Capitol Hill and in statehouses around the country are watching nervously for the answers to those questions.

Supporters of term limits argue that they would bring more competition into the election process, and with it more elected officeholders who have the energy and imagination to accomplish what needs to be done. Opponents maintain that limits would force many effective legislators from office and put legislative power in the hands of inexperienced individuals who would be dominated by experienced but nonelected congressional staffs.

Currently, those favoring limits appear to have the momentum.

Oklahoma last year became the first state to enact limits on legislative service. By a margin of better than 2 to 1, voters approved an initiative that bars anyone from serving more than 12 years as a state representative or senator.

A few months later, California voters approved Proposition 140, a measure limiting the tenure of both state legislators and top officials of the executive branch. The margin of approval was narrower than in Oklahoma, but the limits were more stringent--a maximum of six years in the lower house and eight in the upper house and most statewide offices.

The initiative passed despite opposition from legislative leaders of both parties. Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a Democraft concerned that term limits would end his party's domination of both houses by forcing veteran legislators to retire, was in the forefront of the fight. He raised millions of dollars to fight the proposal.

About 4,000 volunteers working under the direction of Coloradans Back in Charge, a group led by state Sen. Terry Considine, a Republican, took part in the effort to get a term-limit amendment on the ballot. Approved by 71 percent of those voting, the measure sets a maximum of eight years for state offices and 12 years for Congress.