Term limits are not the answer to Michigan’s problems: they are the cause.
Michigan voters will decide whether to enact stricter term limits for representatives and financial reporting requirements for state-elected officials on the ballot this November.
Michigan legislators can serve six years in the state house of representatives and eight years in the state senate. The new proposal would limit legislators to 12 total years serving in the legislature in any combination between the two houses. It would also require all state officials, including the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and all 148 state legislators, to file annual financial disclosure forms.
Advocates for Michigan’s Proposal 1 argue that the initiative is an important step toward improving accountability in Lansing. These arguments fail to account for many of the devastating drawbacks of term limits.
Capping the number of terms politicians can serve will lead to weaker legislation, less bipartisanship, and more influence by special interest groups.
Legislating, like other professions, requires experience to hone the skill. The legislative process is complex with many rules, protocols, and precedents. Term limits require new freshmen lawmakers to quickly pick up the same amount of institutional knowledge as their predecessors.
To fill this gap in institutional knowledge, new representatives seek guidance from special-interest groups and executive agencies. A 2018 study by the Brookings Institute found that legislation crafted by these less-experienced lawmakers is much more likely to be plagued by ambiguity, loopholes, and generalizations.
Inexperience also stimulates more ideologically charged chambers, hampering the bipartisanship necessary to pass laws. Relationships are essential to finalizing a bill’s details and building coalitions to pass it.
Republican Rep. Fred Upton and Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell exemplify this bipartisanship on the federal level. Both Michigan representatives often do meals together, sit with each other during debates, and walk to votes together. They bring civility to an otherwise ideologically charged atmosphere. Good legislation requires this type of bipartisan work to get passed. A greater turnover frequency will mean legislators will have less time to cultivate relationships with their colleagues, likely resulting in less bipartisanship.
Instead of legislators controlling the legislative process, term limits strengthen the influence of special interest lobbying groups. In addition to special interests filling the void of institutional knowledge, term limits would also lead to a substantial increase in the number of politicians becoming lobbyists by automatically kicking out experienced lawmakers after their terms expire. The increased turnover would provide lobbying groups with a greater supply of influential politicians with connections in the statehouse to advance their legislative interests.
The proponents of Proposal 1 argue that the new proposal broadly grants state lawmakers more flexibility when determining whether they will serve in the Michigan House of Representatives or the Senate. Advocates even go so far as to suggest that the initiative would cut the number of dreaded career politicians populating Lansing. In reality, the politicians will simply move across Capitol Avenue to their new lobbying offices, abandoning their districts and establishing a life-long career in Lansing.
The initiative flagrantly disregards the disastrous consequences of term limits, instead charging headfirst to create a legislature dominated by special interest groups and incompetent lawmakers. Rather than encouraging the cultivation of institutional knowledge and mutual respect, term limit advocates are willing to impose a rigid ideologically-driven legislative branch. Michiganders know better than to accept this.
Michiganders should reject Proposal 1. Term limits reduce the quality of our politicians while increasing the quantity.