CNHI
August 24, 2010 —
The rise of the Tea Party movement apparently has spawned another crop of would-be officeholders who say they believe in term limits and want to end the influence of career politicians in our lawmaking bodies.
A few candidates on the November ballot in Kentucky are telling voters they favor term limits and would not want to serve more than a couple of terms. Idealism aside, it may be the most practical strategy for those without the money or name recognition to seriously challenge a veteran incumbent.
The idea of “less government is best government” makes a great bumper sticker or campaign button. Our forefathers endured the abuse of the British and no doubt feared a powerful, central government. They were wise to apportion seats in the U. S. House of Representatives by population and the U.S. Senate by the simplicity of two per state, regardless of size. That might have been our first example of trying to achieve a balance of power.
But the framers of the U. S. and Kentucky constitutions didn’t write a word about term limits for their lawmakers. And Kentucky’s framers had four chances to do so. However, the concept of limiting terms for legislators did find traction in 21 states, starting in 1992. But today, only 15 still have them and one state’s limit is 24 years, 12 in each chamber. Six states have repealed term limits, mainly through the courts because their state constitutions didn’t provide for it originally.
On a practical level, why would we want to surrender the power and influence of long-serving legislators? In the simplest terms, legislative seniority means more state funding for local projects and programs, even in these tough times. Besides, when lawmakers don’t do their jobs to suit us, we can use the old fashioned version of term limits.
It’s called voting them out of office.
