By John Lindstrom
Publisher
Posted: June 29, 2017 12:17 PM

More and more people about the state are questioning Michigan’s term limit system. But the questions always seem to miss one salient point that should be considered.

Just to recall: Michigan voters put term limits into place 25 years ago this upcoming November. It was part of a populist rush to reclaim the Legislature from some nefarious evils that were not banished with term limits nor will they ever be banished.

Michigan was one of a number of states to adopt term limits. Since that rushlet of populist support around the country in the early and mid-1990s, no state has enacted a term limits proposal since 2000. There are a total of 15 states with a term-limited system on their Legislature. In six states, terms limits were repealed either by their legislature or their supreme court. Interestingly, no one has successfully attempted to revive term limits in those states where it has been banned.

From the beginning it was evident term limits was fraught with hopeful but failed dreams. This reporter has long been on the record saying the evidence that term limits has failed is voluminous. It isn’t worth the wasted electrons to repeat, again, what those failures are.

It also appears Michigan will have to limp along with term limits for a long time to come. The public is disinterested in ending it despite its many ills. No one appears to have either the stamina or financing to bring a repeal proposal to the ballot.

But people are talking about changing term limits. Largely that is because of the part-time legislature proposal Lt. Governor Brian Calley is floating, a proposal that some critics charge would leave the Legislature as powerless as a new-born kitten. That term limits discussion, however, always focuses on the idea of extending the current terms – three terms in the House and two in the Senate – or by allowing lawmakers to serve their entire service in one house.

There is another part of term limits, though, that never is discussed: the life-time limit. All discussion is predicated on the idea that once how many ever terms are served, a lawmaker can never again be elected to service. Why?

If one of the criticisms of term limits is that a legislator fails in most cases to develop expertise and legislative management skills until the bitter end of his/her short service, why should they be banned from ever returning?

Michigan is one of just six states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, with a lifetime limit and the other five states allow their legislators to stay longer. Nine states allow legislators to run again after serving a number of consecutive terms if they sit out for a set period of time.

It’s not unusual now for lawmakers in their 20s or early 30s, people who are little more than damn kids, to get elected. Most House members will not serve in the Senate. If someone is elected to the House at say age 25, why should they be banished from ever serving again when they turn 31? What sense does that make?

Someone who has legislative experience will go on to get experience in business, in raising a family, in coping with health care issues, working with schools, dealing with local government as a citizen/resident of that local government, and yet we as a state have said, tough, we don’t want that knowledge in the Legislature. This is someone who has gained new experience, and understands legislative procedure, the process of developing workable proposals and made contacts within government structure. Not allowed to come back. Ever.

Even a middle-aged person, someone who leaves office in his/her 40s or 50s, will gain new experience dealing with retirement issues, finance, health care, end of life questions, possible age discrimination, personal fulfillment, all that could have an effect and be affected by policy. We’ll see you at the legislative reunions.

If, as seems likely, it is impossible to simply end term limits, and if the idea of extending continuous terms is difficult, what about a change saying that a House member can be re-elected after an intervening period of three consecutive House elections? For a Senate member, make it two consecutive Senate elections. That, at least, would fulfill the idea that a person return to whatever constitutes the real world after serving in the Legislature so they can live under their policies. And it would allow them to seek a return to possibly fix those policies without first getting lost in the Capitol looking for a restroom. The voters would still decide if they want that person to return (which was the great fallacy of term limits. The voters always were the ones to decide who served, not the lawmakers) and if they defeat the person, okay. The former lawmaker can try again in another election if he/she chooses.

People supported term limits because they wanted better government, or so they said. However term limits can be changed – adding terms or ending the lifetime ban – may actually take a step towards the better government people said they wanted. What’s the harm in trying?