When I attended Helena High School (way, way back), I took part in a great extracurricular program that took place once a year (twice as often as our Montana Legislature meets): YMCA Youth & Government. For those that aren’t familiar, Youth & Government is a mock state legislature – there’s a governor, a senate, a house, a supreme court, a press corp, and all the other fun stuff. However, if you’re new to Youth & Government you have to take part in the First Year Program. The First Year Program is essentially a mock mock state legislature in which all those new to Youth & Government spend the week simply learning how the legislative process works. To say the least, not a whole lot is accomplished. Does this First Year Program remind you of anything? Maybe our real legislative body?
Term limits, as of late, have been receiving a lot of attention in the Montana press. Senator Tropila of Great Falls was recently term-limited. In his farewell speech, the Senator expressed his discontent with term limits:
“I am adamantly opposed to term limits,” Tropila said. “I think term limits belong at the ballot box by the voters. If they want you, they’ll vote for you. If they don’t, they’ll vote you out.”
I couldn’t agree more, especially when it comes to our legislature. First, from a logical approach, it just doesn’t make sense: if voters are happy with how they are being represented, why deny them that representation? Second, we lose experience, which is incredibly important, especially in Montana. Since our legislature meets every two years for only a few months, we can’t afford to start from scratch every other cycle. Legislative time is valuable and shouldn’t be hindered by some rule that, as already stated, isn’t even logical.
The Flathead Beacon expands on the point of experience:
A near record number of lawmakers are being ousted from office by term limits at the close of this session, just as many are pointing to the overall drain on experience as a source of partisanship and impasse.
“It has been an utter disaster,” said Eric Feaver, lobbyist for Montana’s MEA-MFT teacher’s union. “The inability of this Legislature to come to a legislative conclusion is one more piece of evidence that term limits have hurt Montana.” …
… Senate President Bob Story, R-Park City, who has reached his last days after 16 years as a legislator. ”One third of the most experienced members will be gone in the Senate and next session has the potential to have a whole lot of people who are new to the process in it.”
Additionally, it just causes more problems when trying to have a productive session:
Most lawmakers contend booting them out of office after eight years spurs partisan bickering, increasing the likelihood of deadlock over their one main task — appropriating a budget.
“I would argue that term limits are the biggest cause of the lack of working together,” said Rep. Dennis Himmelberger, R-Billings, who has served his eight years in the House but has no Senate plans. “It takes people a while in this institution to form relationships and really that’s what it’s about is working together to serve the people of Montana.”
Those opposing term limits also say they sap power from the Legislature, which they note is the people’s branch of the government.
“You empower the executive, you empower the lobbyists and that’s not good for the system because then we lose what the citizen Legislature brings,” said Rep. Jill Cohenour, D-East Helena, who has hit eight years in the House.
But, back to the First Year Program:
But on the other side, even freshman lawmakers question whether Montana’s term limits may be too severe, leaving the Legislature without much of what many refer to as “institutional memory.”
“The learning curve is just too steep for a part-time citizen Legislature,” said Sen. Taylor Brown, R-Huntley, a first-time legislator. The key is to balance the benefit of having experienced legislators, against the cost of not fostering enough turnover to create fresh perspectives and new ideas.”
Term limits simply do more harm than good (what good do they do?) when it comes to our legislature and our state on the whole. Maybe in 2010, we can change this? Please. I understand people’s opposition to government becoming entrenched, but with our state legislative body, there isn’t much to worry about. There is a lot more to worry about when it comes to losing experience, spurring party bickering, and, most importantly, losing good representation that we voters are, obviously, pleased with.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
The only thing not mentioned is that 70% of Montana voters WANT THEM!! The people of Montana have spoke LOUD and CLEAR on Term Limits twice. They're here to stay, politicians should focus their attention on setting up systems to help incoming legislators instead of constantly complaining.
Your point is correct: the majority of Montanans do want term limits and that is a very important thing to note when debating this issue. However, majority doesn't always make right. Term limits, when you take into consideration that our legislature meets every two years, are relatively new to MT. In 2011 we're going to see the result of term limits and it's going to be a mess (hopefully, I'm wrong).
Additionally, I think most Montanans are more concerned with term limits for statewide positions. In this current legislative session, legislation to eliminate term limits died in committee because of questions as to whether or not the legislation would eliminate term limits for statewide positions.
You argue in this that "majority doesn't always make right", and the in your article you argue that we need to give the people more control by repealing term limits? I hope you can see how little sense this makes.
So the people (the majority) would be right if they voted by 70% to elect someone, but if they vote by 70% to not accept a policy change that doesn't count? Can you see how getting rid of term limits might be a problem now? Because someone like you who does logical somersaults in order to accomplish his own goals would stay in power forever, and then his family, etc.
You know what's impossible if term limits are always in play? Any type of dictatorship. You know what's not impossible? Legislators working harder to get their freaking work done. You don't like it? Go get a real job.
That's actually not true. There were two bills that went to committee, one that eliminated them for statewide positions and one just for legislators. I went to Helena to testify on both of them.
I would agree that most people want them for statewide positions MORE than legislators, but when given the choice of both – they would choose both and not either one.
I think the so-called "mess" with term limits is much better than the mess we had for years with career politicians. You had a few people that held onto power and ruled the Legislature, this stifles new ideas and creates an elite few that control everything.
Any problems we have with term limits are much better than the problems we have without term limits. The one thing that I have 100% confidence in is the people. They will never allow term limits to be stricken down.
I'm curious as to whether or not you really believe there was or ever could be a problem with "career politicians" in Montana. These people have full time jobs, the legislature doesn't pay much, and the legislature meets every two years. Hard to make a carreer out of that.
Bottom-line: term limits waste money by waisting time. If a voter's are happy with their representation, they should be allowed to keep it.
The excuse ´the majority of Montanans think this way´ is a rather poor one. I think we are all aware that this blog frequently holds opinions different from the majority of Montanans. Our purpose is to try and get people to consider opinions besides their own.
Perhaps the best solution is just lengthening the term limits currently in place. I can see the dangers in always having the same people; in a positions as small as State Senator, the incumbents advantage is enormous, because there is relatively little campaigning for many positions, making name recognition exceptionaly important.
However, the current system means that half of all legislators will probaby either be in their first year, or with no prospects for re-election. If a legislator has no prospect of being re-elected, there is not much incentive for them to actually obey the will of their constituents. Perhaps if state Senators had ten or twelve years, it would mean that there woud be no great trouble with elitism, but Senators would have more time to gain experience, woud be abe to develop more working reationships, and would spend a greater percentage of their total time with re-election incentive to represent their constituents.
Another advantage would be that Legislative leaders would have greater experience before they were pushed out by term limits, meaning that when the most successfu of them ran for statewide office, they would be better experienced and the voting public will have a longer legisative voting record to look at when deciding who to support for statewide positions.