Harriet Lloyd: Term Limits and Purging Rhode Island’s Career Legislators
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Albert Einstein purportedly said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” That premise speaks volumes about Rhode Island’s voting population because, this election season, candidates for 29 of the 113 (26%) seats in the General Assembly are running unopposed. The numbers break down this way: in the Senate, 9 of 38 seats (24%), and in the House, 20 of 75 seats (27%). Sadly, in a year of unprecedented fiscal catastrophe, electing the same people repeatedly indicates that a frighteningly large number of Rhode Islanders either are content to sit at the bottom of the national heap, have given up entirely, or daresay, need the proverbial ‘check-up-from-the-neck-up’.
Indeed, the Ocean State is beset by a culture of ‘career legislators’, who lack the expertise and resolve to right the sinking ship – a ship with voters so disgusted and disillusioned, many have simply given up hope. This is not to say that unopposed candidates are necessarily unworthy; rather, it is a comment on how poorly citizens are served by a lack of healthy rotation of leadership and qualified people willing to run for important public offices.
In Rhode Island, the average state senator has held office for five terms, or 10 years. Five have been in office 20 or more years, including one who has spent 26 years there; eleven have been in office for 12 to 18 years; and four for 8 to 10 years. In the House, the average tenure is 9 years; sixteen representatives have been in office for 20 years or more, including one who’s been there 28 years; eight have been in office for 12 to 18 years; and, seven have served for 8 to 10 years.
Due to a culture of career legislators, Rhode Island’s schools, municipalities, businesses and families have endured corruption, scandal, neglect and abuse while taxes and government spending have soared out of control. Clearly, the 2012 legislative session did little, if anything, to address the people’s pain. Thus, the topic of term limits has sparked renewed debate in coffee shops and barrooms around the state as a potential means of bringing fresh air and renewal to the State House and purging worn-out, ineffectual politicians too comfortably enjoying their power and perks like free healthcare.
Fifteen U.S. states have imposed term limits ranging from six to eight years upon their legislators. Six states have a lifetime ban against ever running for a legislative seat when one has met the term limit; nine permit a legislator who has met the term limit in one chamber to run for a seat in the other; and eight of the ten largest cities in America have adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayors.
Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson supported congressional term limits, “to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress.” George Mason advised limits on the number of terms in Congress, saying, "Nothing can be so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation (of its members)."
Essentially, legislators of the 18th and 19th centuries imposed term limits upon themselves, as they were working people paid only about six dollars per year and had a lifespan too short to serve multiple terms. Today’s Rhode Islanders can expect long-lived career politicians, special interests and lobbyists to defiantly oppose term limits that force them out of lucrative and influential legislative seats. Clearly, to rein in the corruption, power and privileges that come with serving too long in a political office, a thorough and public examination of term limits and other potential reforms must take place.
Rhode Island’s Constitution provides that, every ten years, there will be a referendum on whether a Constitutional Convention should be convened to consider issues of good government practices, as well as economic and social issues. It has been 30 years since the last one (at which delegates reduced the number of legislators from 152 to 113), but another opportunity will arrive in 2014. The time may be at-hand to give thoughtful and thorough review to term limits and other measures regarding the composition and practices of the General Assembly. Should voters decide they want change, now is the time to frame those issues – before the same entrenched legislators just get ten years older.
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Comments:
Lance Chappell
8:35am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
When you have 25% of the General Assembly being elected by signature papers, perhaps the legislature should be shrunk by the same amount. Term limits are desperately needed in this state as not enough new people are coming in with new ideas. I believe we are also dealing with an electorate that is out of touch on how government works. RI usually only attracts about 48% of the registered voters of the state. They don’t vote because they feel it doesn’t matter or lack the understanding of the process.
Gary Trott
9:36am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Not too many years ago we were told that the way to solve Rhode Island's problems was to raise the compensation of our legislators from $5.00/day to more than $10,000.00. The idea as it was sold to us is that this would make it easier for new people to run and make it possible for them to dedicate the time required of the position. As we are all well aware that didn't work.
I congratulate Ms Lloyd and the others who promote term limits as a way to cure the problems of our state, but I don't believe that will help any more than the raise in pay did. After all every long term legislator was once a first term legislator who was a "fresh face" with new ideas. And people re-elected him or her enough times to become a long term legislator. Just changing the faces in the General Assembly (GA) isn't going to get it done. What is going to get it done is changing the mindset of the GA by electing the right people.
Just like most problems there is no quick fix to this one and it will require a long term solution. That solution will come by educating the voters as to what is going on and then they will elect better legislators who will in turn correct the problems of our state. This is already beginning as we can see from the Republican gains in the General Assembly which occured in the 2010 election. As more and more people become aware of the problems, more and more new candidates will be elected, and more and more change for the better will happen in Rhode Island.
Dave Johnson
12:00pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Many of the same 'leaders' remain in office is because they are strictly beholden to special interests (public sector unions). Union members typically vote as a cohesive block, thus they can control almost any 'election'.
Even though RI is in a dire fiscal condition, things are still pretty darn good for union members. Meanwhile, businesses and jobs take a back seat while the union backers figure out more ways to extract money from taxpayers.
I don't see any end to this madness, other than an outright revolt, or maybe a fiscal collapse of some sort.
pearl fanch
1:46pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Sure, and who would be responsible for creating term limits?
The General Assembly?
I don't think that will happen.
Ron Barron
4:18pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
As someone who lived in two states with term limits, I can tell you that they do not provide the panacea that this author seems to think they will. My experience with term limits is that they push out experienced people and replace them with party loyalists who use the elected position as a resume builder. The reality here is that most officials run unopposed because...wait for it...no one is opposing them. What we have here is an engagement issue, not a structural issue. Imposing term limits will do nothing to encourage competition. We need to make it easier for people to run and we need to keep it easy for people to vote. If you have an engaged and informed electorate, you will see more turn over, without the need for a constitutional amendment.
Harriet Lloyd
4:24pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Ron,
No 'panacea'. If you read again, I recommend a thorough study of term limits and other reform measures - many of which can be addressed only by a Constitutional Convention.
h