The electorate of South Dakota voted in term limits in the early 1990’s. The Supreme Court struck down, in US Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton, various states’ term limits for federal representatives (US House and US Senate) reasoning that those terms and qualifications were outlined in Article One of the US Constitution and only an amendment to that document could alter either the terms or the qualifications for those federal offices. Nevertheless term limits came into effect for State positions in South Dakota with winning candidates limited to eight uninterrupted years in any one office.
I was first elected to the State Senate of South Dakota in the fall of 1992, taking my oath of office in January of 1993. I was in the first group of legislators to be limited in the number of terms that could be consecutively elected to the same office. I was reelected three more times, served my eight years in the State Senate and then was termed out. I jumped over to the State House of Representatives and served two more terms before deciding to retire so I didn’t miss out on any more of my kids’ childhood and activities.
South Dakota term limits aren’t term limits, not really. I could have done my eight years in the State Senate and then eight in the State House and then back to the State Senate and so forth and so on for as long as the voters could stomach me. Governor Bill Janklow did something similar. He was governor for eight years (1979-1987), took a break and practiced law then was governor again for eight more years (1995-2003). The only advantage of term limits is that it creates an open seat every now and again. More people are willing to run for an open seat when they don’t have to take on a presumably more popular, well-known and better-financed incumbent.
I’m in favor of term limits. I also like contested elections as opposed to “coronations” where an incumbent runs unopposed. I think voters deserve a choice and incumbents should have to defend their record and explain their vision for the future as opposed to just resting on their past accomplishments. Lately, I’ve had a number of people approach me asking me to run for the Legislature again.
I’ve said “no” for a number of reasons. I like what I’m doing now. I also don’t want to have to raise thousands of dollars in order to make a credible run for office. While I enjoyed campaign activities like going to go door-to-door, attending church suppers and other events, participating in debates etc. I just don’t want to expend the time and effort it takes to do them anymore. Part of my reluctance to run for office again is because I’m approaching my mid-sixties.
Don’t get me wrong, I think older people have much to contribute and, on the whole, tend to be wiser and have better judgment than the whippersnappers who think they know everything. However, I’m in favor not only of term limits based on the length of service but also based on age.
The current average age of Congress, the US House and Senate, is 59 and the median age (that’s where exactly half the people are above that line and half are below) is 60. The median age of the United States’ general population is 38. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is 88. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein of California is soon to be 89. Senate Leaders are elderly as well, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is 80 and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is 71. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 82. President Biden will be 80 in November while former President Donald Trump will be 76 on Flag Day this year. For those curious about South Dakota’s Congressional Delegation, Senator Mike Rounds is 67 while Senator John Thune is 61 and Representative Dusty Johnson is a relative stripling at 45.
Republican Strom Thurmond (R-SC) was in the Senate until the ripe old age of 99 and his Democratic colleague, Robert Byrd (D-W Va) served until he was 92. Obviously the voters get to decide whom they will elect to Congress and geezers have to face the voters like any other candidate but I believe there should be a mandatory retirement age for our nation’s leaders, including the Supreme Court.
Several occupations have a mandatory retirement age. Federal law requires pilots to retire at 65. Federal law enforcement officers and related similar government jobs are required to retire at 57, if they have twenty years of service or more in by that time. Air Traffic Controllers are required to hang it up at 56. The Florida State Constitution has enshrined a mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges.
The age of 70 seems like the right age for mandatory retirement. I would amend the Constitution to require all holders of federal office to retire at age 70 with one proviso. If an elected officer turned 70 during their term, they would be allowed to finish serving that term but could not stand for reelection. Supreme Court Justices would have to retire from office upon turning 70; however, as in the case of elected officials, if a Justice turned 70 in the middle of the Court’s session (typically October to late June or early July) they would be allowed to complete that Court’s term before stepping down.
This system of age restrictions would do much for the country, especially if it were to be combined with limits on the number of terms in office any one individual could have. We would have more turnover so more people would serve and hopefully the country would then have a broader cross section of people, occupations and life experiences represented in the halls of Congress. I have often said that if I could wave my magic wand, I would make every South Dakotan serve two terms in the Legislature to see just how complicated the issues are, how really murky it is to know what the “right” thing to do actually is and how truly difficult it is to get anything done.
Part of our difficulties as a nation arises from having these dinosaurs in office who, because of their tenure, feel like they know it all and know better than the rest of us. They lose touch with regular people and the vagaries of ordinary life with their chauffeured limousines, preferred treatment, the bubble of security and being feted wherever they go. The Founders initially thought of service in the Congress as a temporary responsibility rather than as a life-long career. The original idea was that folks would do a stint in office and then return to private enterprise, not that they would spend a lifetime in elective office to the exclusion of all else.
It’s true that not all of us, or perhaps not even that many of us, wish to serve in elective office. However, it is an obligation of citizenship. I applaud those who are currently standing for local office and competing in primaries for the privilege of offering themselves for consideration by the electorate this fall. As Lincoln said, “…government of the people, by the people, for the people…” that is the creed of our nation and the basis of our founding; now we need more people to step up to run for public office and many others to realize when it’s time to step down.