 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
"Silver bullet politics." That's how Sangamon State University Professor Kent D. Redfield describes the public fascination with term limits as a cureall for what ails the legislative process. "You shoot the beast through the heart and then forget about it," explained Redfield, a long-time legislative observer and expert in campaign finance. In an age when routine tasks from opening a car door to changing a TV channel can be accomplished by touching a button, perhaps it's no surprise that the notion of removing political leaders by remote control should find favor. In Illinois, more than 400,000 voters signed petitions asking for the chance to limit their lawmakers to eight years in office, at the behest of state Treasurer Pat Quinn, who is pushing the term limit initiative as part of his campaign for secretary of state. Earlier this year, a Chicago Tribune poll found overwhelming support for the self-styled populist's plan among likely primary voters — two-thirds of Democrats and 71 percent of Republicans were for it. The enthusiasm for term limits rests largely on the perception that legislative bodies are dominated by entrenched incumbents who are beholden to special interests, deaf to constituent concerns, and shielded from voter reprisals. "Today in Illinois, we have too many career politicians in both parties who are more worried about pleasing lobbyists and staying in office than squarely addressing the important issues of the day," Quinn asserted in unveiling his Eight is Enough proposal last fall. Unfortunately, the medicine Dr. Quinn is prescribing won't be effective for the condition that's causing the complaints. What's worse, his remedy will have undesirable side effects, some of which could exacerbate the current illness. Indeed, evidence suggests the diagnosis itself may be wrong. Consider, for example, the longevity of the 177 men and women who comprise the 88th Illinois General Assembly. Only 40 of 118 current House members have served more than eight years, and eight of them are lame ducks. Another 10 are in their fourth term, and one of them is retiring. Thus, when the next legislature is seated in January, at most only about a third of the House will be what term limit fanciers consider "entrenched." In the Senate, 36 of 59 incumbents have served in the legislature more than eight years, but nine of them are first-term senators who gained their longevity in the House. Such numbers belie the notion that most lawmakers are long-term incumbents. But assume that even one long-term legislator is too many, as does Quinn's proposal. And set aside the very valid point that voters already can retire any incumbent at any election, simply by voting for his or her opponent. What consequences might be anticipated if no lawmaker served more than eight years? Consider a few unpleasant possibilities: • The legislature clearly would be shorn of its long-term institutional memory as well as the level of expertise on issues that lawmakers build up over a decade or more. Thus handicapped, the elected officials would become more reliant on non-elected participants in the legislative process, like lobbyists and staff, none of whom would face similar limits on service. • Lawmakers in their final term would be more susceptible to special interests, protected as they would be from voter wrath by their status as constitutional lame ducks. The temptation would be even greater for those hoping for a new career as lobbyists themselves. • Potential challengers to sitting lawmakers, particularly those nearing the end of their allotted tenure, would be dissuaded from running. Why take on an incumbent, when it will be an open seat the next time around? • Once elected, incumbents would continue to enjoy as much job security as they now have until their time is up. They would continue to run from districts the majority of which are crafted to favor one party or the other, and their political war chests 6/June 1994/Illinois Issues would continue to benefit from the largesse of special interest contributors who realize a friend in office is worth two on the outside. The last point is perhaps the most significant, for it underscores how those who prescribe term limits as the remedy for the troublesome symptoms they see in the body politic have missed in their diagnosis of the problem. If the goal is to "make room for new people with fresh ideas," as Quinn proclaims, it can be achieved without denying voters in a given district the right to retain a lawmaker they believe is doing a good job as long as they wish. If the current system is skewed to favor incumbents, as term limit supporters believe, the solution is to level the playing field for challengers. Term limits would accomplish that only once every eight years in a given district. On the other hand, every race would be more competitive if two basic changes were made in the way lawmakers are elected: • Adopt a redistricting procedure that minimizes partisan considerations in drawing the legislative map. Under the current system, the overriding concern of mapmakers is to produce as many districts as possible that favor the party which won the right to prepare the map. A less partisan approach would result in a greater number of competitive districts, and provide less security for incumbents. • Limit campaign spending to remove the enormous advantage incumbents have in raising funds, and thus buying television time and direct mail services to get their message out. In addition, more thorough media coverage of legislative campaigns would enhance voter awareness of both the candidates and the issues. Removing the "home court" advantage for the candidate of the favored party and affording challengers a chance to be heard on a more equal footing with incumbents would result in legislative races that are more competitive and increased turnover in the legislature. That should satisfy the concerns behind the term limit push while sparing us from remote control democracy.
June 1994/Illinois Issues/7
|
|||||||||||||
