Category: term limits

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Voters Need Not Apply

Colorado politicians have hatched a scheme, Senate Concurrent Amendment 1, that may solve the awful problem of those pesky Colorado voters passing reforms like term limits and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the state’s quite effective spending cap.

SCR-1 solves the alleged problem of too many constitutional amendments by — you guessed it — enacting yet another constitutional amendment. As the Senate yesterday passed SCR-1, sending it to the House, Democratic Senator Linda Newell of Denver complained, “I am embarrassed to see how many changes are in our constitution.”

She should be. While most of the 16 amendments enacted in the last decade were proposed by legislators (ten, or 62.5 percent), the measure the snooty senator supports is designed to disrupt only the citizen initiative process.

SCR-1 prevents a majority of Colorado voters from passing amendments by requiring a 60 percent supermajority — that is, allowing a 40 percent minority to block any reform. This works great for big labor and big business interests who can spend big bucks running nasty 30-second TV ads to create enough doubt to hold an initiative one vote under 60 percent.

Worse yet, if SCR-1 passes, legislators would still be able to put term limits or the state’s spending limit on the ballot for repeal by a simple majority. An interesting principle: new reform requires a supermajority, but lower percentages may gut term limits or dump the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people term limits

Term Limits, Good

During the last few weeks of Egyptian unrest, a phrase got bandied about with an unusual degree of assumed support: Term limits. We heard of their importance from The Christian Science Monitor,  The New York Times, and other news sources, some of which would normally pooh-pooh any push to establish, say, legislative term limits in America.

The writers and editors in question should find this odd. Why is it good for an executive in America to be term limited (as our Commander-in-Chief is), and even essential (as was often said) for commanders elsewhere, while it’s verboten for U.S. legislators?

Term limits’ rationale is clear. Journalists who wrote about the lack of term limits for Mubarak got the idea. They’re familiar with Lord Acton’s dictum: Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Term limits for executives prevent tyrannies from forming — or, if formed, from continuing till the rigors of mortis set in.

What do term limits for legislators prevent?

Not full-blown tyranny, exactly, but corruption. In a representative democracy, corruption can be subtle.

Term limits are just unsubtle enough to check some of that.

Take John Dingell, the politician to serve longest exclusively in the House. He took over his district from his father, who had served there 22 years — a 78-year dynasty!

Aristotle argued men should “rule and be ruled in turn.” Term limitation: a democratic principle to ward off both wannabe dictators and legislative dynasties.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Starting Somewhere With Term Limits

To be effective in reversing the big-government tide, the new GOP majority in the House must exercise the discipline to shake off bad old habits. Where to start? Term limits.

And the term limits can start with leadership.

In 1994, the GOP imposed term limits on committee chairmen. Although there was a little wavering around the edges of that reform, the party did retain it until the Democrats gained the majority in 2008 and promptly chucked the idea of committee chair term limits.

Having regained the majority, some Republicans are mumbling about “granting exceptions” to committee chair limits for this guy and that guy and the other guy. But rampant exceptions to sensible reforms would show that nothing much is changing in how Congress does business. And a lot’s got to change.

Other Republicans, though, are talking about term limits not only for committee chairmen but for all leadership positions. The new Majority Leader-to-be, Eric Cantor, tells The Hill he’d support “a six-year term limit for each position.”

Hear, hear. Bravo!

But let’s shout out loudest for term limits on all members of Congress. Senator Tom Coburn and others have sponsored a constitutional amendment to impose a maximum of two six-year terms in the Senate, three two-year terms in the House. A hard sell to the entrenched incumbent? Sure. Fifteen years ago, a similar effort failed. But like most good failure, it can be built upon.

Let’s start at the top.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers term limits

Congressional Stagnation at an End?

With this last election, 87 percent of House incumbents who chose to run for re-election got re-elected.

That’s low by modern standards. In fact, it’s the lowest since 1970, which garnered 85 percent rates for incumbents.

But it’s high by older standards. Eric O’Keefe, of the Sam Adams Alliance, says that the re-election rate may be low today but remains higher “than every election of the 19th century.”

Something changed. Individual career politicians gained the upper hand.

On the brighter side, it’s worth noting that if you include “voluntary retirement” in current figures, the turnover rate was much higher. Forty-five open House seats saw 16 flips of party affiliation, all but one going from Democrat to Republican. This leads Doug Mataconis to figure the retention rate at 64 percent. (Still, in the 19th century, that same rate averaged to under 60 percent.)

Of course, many of our recent “voluntary retirees” may have seen the writing on the wall, preferring to bow out with more dignity than an electoral trouncing would allow.

Credit this to an exceptional frisson amongst the voting public, born of anger and disgust at the political class’s habitual over-spending and general foolishness.

It remains to be seen whether this acuity of citizen focus can alone spur continued turnover and real change. It seems unlikely, which is why I’ve long supported term limits.

But, whatever the source, real change is necessary. And the current turnover, welcome.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Your Victory

Tuesday’s mid-term elections amount to another watershed moment in American political history. Almost no one can stop talking about the success of (and prospects for) the “Tea Party” movement. I’m no different, except that, for me, the most interesting race in the land wasn’t about a candidate. It was a more direct victory for people controlling government.

I refer to Oklahoma’s State Question 750.

Regular readers know what I’m talking about. Last week I asked for help promoting the measure. My readers came through, and it may be their efforts — your efforts! — that put this crucial ballot initiative over the top.

Tuesday evening we thought we had lost. Results came in Wednesday morning, however, tipping the balance towards SQ-750. Now, with unofficial results in from all precincts, we remain ahead 50.4 to 49.6 percent. We won by 7,649 votes (out of nearly a million). That’s close.

So, each last-minute donor can be proud of really accomplishing something. Our ad, which you sponsored, almost certainly made the difference.

Oklahoma has been the toughest “initiative state,” the one with the most restrictions. Thanks to SQ-750, and previous reforms pushed by Citizens in Charge and several Oklahoma groups, the state will sport more rational requirements on the petition process and the number of petition signatures.

In related news, Oklahoma’s term limits measure won big, as expected.

Both of these measures will be instrumental in allowing citizens more control of their own government.

Thank you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers term limits

The Goblins of November

Which is scarier, Halloween or the Tuesday after?

Silly question. Of course it’s Tuesday. Election Day.

The ghouls and goblins of Halloween are all dress-up; kids enjoying some play on the dark side, the better to go back into the light and . . . eat candy.

The ghouls and goblins of Election Day are dressed up, too. But the pretend element is that incumbent politicians aren’t the problem. (Or, as the contest heats up, that it’s some other incumbent’s fault.)

It’s all trick and no net treat, though, when their idea of “the good” incorporates all sorts of scams and schemes to take from some to give to others. Or better yet, to promise to give something later . . . long after they’ve retired. Then, those good intentions develop horns and tails and sulfuric stench.

It’s highly likely that U.S. Congress’s majority Democrats will receive many thwacks from challenging Republicans. This is to the good not because Republicans have proven themselves stalwart foes of politics-as-usual, but only because the devils I don’t know (the challengers) ought to be better than the devils we do know (the incumbents).

Why? The incumbents have learned the devil’s trade. The challengers have not necessarily succumbed to the temptations of that deviltry.

Yet.

Term limits, which cut down the time politicians spend in the path of temptation, might help purge some of the evil.

Unfortunately, term limits aren’t on most ballots next Tuesday. Only in Oklahoma.

Happy Halloween.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Big Bucks to Promote Term Limits

Maybe you’re like me — you’d gladly ballyhoo term limits even if you don’t get handed $10,000. But if you want the ten grand, too, here’s your chance: An outfit called Our Generation is holding a video contest to find the best 60-second ad promoting congressional term limits. The deadline is December 1, 2010. Contest guidelines are posted at aboutourgeneration.org.

Here’s an idea you can use with my compliments: Attack the fallacies. Certain clichés about term limits get repeated so reflexively they sound more like mantras than arguments. Your ad could starkly juxtapose fallacy with reality, highlighting the silliness of the claims.

One such mantra is “We already have term limits, they’re called elections.”

Of course, elections too frequently prove hollow affairs, with incumbents standing for re-election, and standing again for re-election. Especially at district level, incumbents often suffer no major-party opposition or only nominal opposition. Your video could show clips of politicians asserting “We already have term limits, they’re called elections,” alternating with clips of reporters announcing that Congressman So-and-so is running unopposed. Back and forth, back and forth, faster, faster. You could probably squeeze at least 20 into a 60-second ad. Would take some research to get the clips, but the supply is endless.

We also hear a lot about how term limits eject experience. Experience doing what? What our Congress has been up to the last few years? Well, you take it from there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

The Election Addiction Fiction

Poor Willie Brown. Ever since California slapped term limits on state lawmakers, Brown’s lacked a permanent perch in power.

For many, Brown’s 15-year reign as speaker serves as Exhibit A in the case against unlimited terms. Brown himself bragged that he had been the “Ayatollah” of the assembly — though later he seemed to repent of his support for untrammeled spending in that role.

He next lathered patronage as mayor of San Francisco. But this was another term-limited post, so he couldn’t barnacle himself there either.

It still bothers Brown how voters limited tenures. He’s always opposed term limits. And now the papers quote him telling a Republican political club that term limits are a “disaster. . . . We’ve allowed ourselves to become addicted to elections.” (You guessed it: He disdains citizen initiative rights too.)

Elections, an addiction? Like heroin? Of course, we’re “addicted” to everything these days. Obama says we’re “addicted” to oil (as did Bush). We’d all admit a compulsion to consume food and oxygen.

To learn what weaning ourselves off term limits might be like, check Ballotpedia, which reports that even in this roiling political year, only 19 incumbent state senators out of 1,167 running for re-election lost their primaries. Less than 40 percent — the exact number is 459 — even faced an opponent. In general elections, incumbent re-election rates typically exceed 90 percent, even in tough political times.

That’s fine with politicians like Brown, who always crave another fix — of political power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Like Zimbabwe

Richard M. Lindstrom signed a petition, but his signature didn’t count.

The analytical chemist for the federal government left off his middle initial. He told the Washington Post, “I dropped my middle initial on my official signature, oh, I don’t know, probably 40 years ago. It’s my signature. It’s acceptable to my bank and everybody else. But not the Board of Elections.”

Welcome to Montgomery County, Maryland. The Old Line State may lack a statewide initiative, but it does have a robust initiative and referendum process at the county level of government. Unfortunately, as many as 80 percent of the signatures for two initiative petitions — one for term limits and another on ambulance fees — were recently invalidated by county officials. In 2008, the Maryland Court of Appeals declared that a person’s signature on a petition must be presented precisely as signed on his or her voter registration form or, alternatively, must include the surname from the registration and one full given name as well as the initials of all other names.

Longtime petition activist Robin Ficker led the term limits drive. But his signature didn’t count either. While he signed “Robin K. Ficker,” his full name is Robin Keith Annesley Ficker. He forgot the initial “A.”

“They are not even letting people have the chance to vote,” Ficker argued as he and others appeal the petition decision. “It’s the antithesis of a democracy. It’s what they would do in, like, Zimbabwe.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Term Limits “versus” Informed Citizens?

In his commentary “Term Limits Are a Poor Substitute for an Informed Electorate,” blogger Andy Sochor repeats a familiar claim: That formally term-limiting political tenure implies the irrelevance of intelligent involvement in political life, and even discourages our participation in it.

This assessment would have surprised the Romans in their republican days or the Athenians in Greece’s golden age. Both polities imposed stringent term limits on political offices; and in both, citizens (non-slave adult males) actively participated in political life. It was willingness to flout traditional term limits that helped precipitate the collapse of the Roman republic and the rise of the emperors. Augustus, who took over after Julius Caesar was assassinated, ruled uninterruptedly for decades (even if we subtract the years he shared imperial power with Mark Antony).

Term limits in fact encourage citizens to participate in political life by fostering meaningful options at the polling booth. Incumbents enjoy enormous advantages over challengers, especially in district-level elections. These advantages often yield lopsided contests and even contests in which the incumbent faces no challenger at all.

What use is it to a voter to study up on which candidate is best when there’s only one candidate?

No single institutional feature of governance can conquer corruption in high places or ignorance in low places. But from what I’ve seen, voters become discouraged from learning about options when their options are reduced under incumbency-forever politics.

Under term limits, they have greater incentive to inform themselves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.