Coming to terms

The original appeal of term limits – that they would bring new perspectives and fresh ideas to the State House – probably has come to pass, though it is hard to quantify. Comments from lawmakers suggest at least that rank and file are being listened to more often now than in years past. Similarly difficult to measure but just as present is the downside of the limits – a lack of experience, seen in everything from needless conflict within and among political parties, debates concluded one year arising again in the next and leadership short on history.

This downside was felt starting several years ago when term limits first was applied, and it has produced two proposed solutions. The Legislature’s Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee voted unanimously recently to send both questions, as advisories, out to voters in November. Politically, it may be necessary to get direct voter input on these questions, although lawmakers certainly don’t on most other issues, including others that previously went through the citizen-initiative process. But with the full Legislature’s consent, voters next fall will be faced with these two questions:

“Do you favor amending the state law to increase from 4 to 6 the number of consecutive terms that may be served by a member of the State Legislature?”

“Do you favor repealing the state law that limits to 4 the number of consecutive terms that may be served by a member of the State Legislature?”

The better choice is to keep term limits but extend the number of terms of service to six, or 12 years, because the advantages of incumbency during campaigns are real, requiring the limits, but the lack of experience harmful, especially in leadership. The succession of Senate presidents and House speakers since term limits and the broader lack of continuity or incentive for long-range planning in those positions and on committees in general have hurt the legislative process and legislation itself. Studies called for by leaders in one legislature are ignored by those in the next; programs that needed guidance over several years are barely remembered by the following January; members of leadership have about a week before they begin thinking about their legacies.

Term limits are far from the sole reason lawmakers tend to think more about the short term instead of how their proposals will affect Maine many years from now, but they are a significant contributor to this problem and, according to lawmakers, to the problem of the shift in the balance of power between them and unelected staff and executive-branch appointees.

Increasing the years of service from eight to 12 should help improve the situation while still encouraging new voices to be heard.