Term limits detrimental to legislators, study says

Local politicians disagree about the study's findings.

By Jacob Barker

Published Sept. 8, 2006

When Rick Hardy ran for U.S. Congress in 1992, his campaign slogan always brought a smile to the faces of the people he spoke to: "Diapers and politicians ought to be changed regularly."

Although he lost the race, Hardy's enthusiastic support of legislative term limits has never faltered.

Hardy, a former MU political science professor and current chairman of the political science department at Western Illinois University, also coordinated the 9th District signature collection for Missouri's ballot initiative to institute term limits on state legislators while he was running for Congress in the 9th District.

"I've looked at problems we've had in government over the years," Hardy said. "Term limits as a solution are nothing new. Thomas Jefferson supported them. Harry Truman thought term limits should be instituted. Overall, I think term limits generate new thoughts and ideas in legislatures."

According to a study released Aug. 15, Hardy's beliefs about term limits might not be the case. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) conducted the Joint Project on Term Limits, which concluded that term limits reduce legislative effectiveness by reducing the number of experienced legislators and increasing partisanship.

Proponents of term limits, such as Hardy, argue that they encourage legislative diversity and help fight corruption.

Karl Kurtz, director of state services at the NCSL and a lead researcher in the study, said term limits are a detriment to the legislative process.

"Term limits in states have done more to limit rather than enhance the effectiveness of the legislative branch," Kurtz said in a recent news release.

Kurtz also said that, contrary to what proponents of term limits hoped, term limits have not increased the number of women or the number of minority legislators.

Vicky Riback Wilson, who now works at MU, was prohibited from running for Missouri House in 2004 because of term limits.

"When I was (in the House), I had the advantage of serving with very experienced legislators who taught me the process and the importance of the institution," Wilson said. "Without role models, it's easy for a legislator to forget their responsibility to the public."

In the '90s, 21 states enacted term limits for their legislatures (Missouri was one of them) with an eight-year maximum for representatives and senators. Now, only 15 states retain term limits.

"It was a time when people were saying, 'I'm tired of politics as usual, let's do something about it,'" Hardy said. "To get the bad people out of office, you need a first step. Instituting term limits was that first step in Missouri."

Hardy said the increase in partisanship is due more to changing times and cultural values than term limits. He also disagrees that term limits cede more power to the executive branch because of inexperienced legislators.

"We've always assumed the governor can learn his job in eight years," Hardy said. "If someone takes eight years to learn how to do their job, we don't need them in the legislature anyway."

Wilson said she agreed with the study that the executive branch has grown stronger due to term limits.

"There's less oversight of the executive branch because there's less time for legislators to watch the bureaucracy and understand the intricacies of how individual departments function," Wilson said.

Despite the study's findings, Hardy disagrees that term limits have made legislatures less effective.

"Whether the legislature is effective or not is in the eye of the beholder," Hardy said. "Yes, you'll lose some good people, but there are tons of private individuals who would make good legislators. There are always people who rise to the occasion and become great leaders."