Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever a man casts a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” I understand those who say we already have term limits, they’re called “elections”. However, there are practicalities and realities that temper that philosophy.
I ran for the State Legislature for the first time in 1988 when there were no term limits. I lost that election to a popular, long serving Republican incumbent by the name of George Shanard. I would have had a better chance in an “open election”, one where there was no incumbent. I ran again in 1992, again facing Senator Shanard, and won that time. By then, I was subject to term limits.
South Dakota state law allows only eight consecutive years in any one office. Four two year terms in the State Senate or House and two four year terms for offices like Governor. However, an office holder is free to “jump” from one office to another. That’s what I did. I served eight years in the State Senate was termed out and then served four years in the House before I voluntarily decided not to seek another term in office. I was tired of the travel, the stress of legislative leadership, the loss of income that came with public service and I was very tired of dealing with the crazies that populate politics. Some “jumping” takes place in other state offices, a State Treasurer will be termed out and then run for another office – say State Secretary of State or most often, a term limited Attorney General will run for Governor.
That’s the argument against term limits. Folks are satisfied with a popular incumbent, so why should that incumbent have to “jump” from one office to another because of an arbitrary term limit? People get beat for election, like I did in 1988, or defeated for reelection, like George Shanard did in 1992, or decide to leave office on their own – as I did after twelve years of service, so why have term limits? However, there are many good arguments for term limits.
First, term limits encourage more participation. When a seat is open, meaning no incumbent is seeking reelection in the race, then there are more people interested in running. It stands to reason; your chances of victory are better. Pity those who choose to run against popular incumbents like Senators Thune and Rounds or Congressman Johnson, those who challenge them really don’t have a prayer. Incumbents typically have the name recognition, the power to raise more money for a campaign, a better organization than the challenger and the campaign experience to know what the most effective methods are to reach people and the best ways to spend those scarce campaign dollars. Challenging an incumbent is a difficult, lonely, expensive, exhausting and often an abusive undertaking.
Second, term limits focus an office holder ‘s attention on the important things and demands prioritization of projects and issues. After all, if time is limited then one must get a move on in order to accomplish the goals of holding office, assuming the title isn’t all a successful candidate is after.
Third, term limits inevitably bring in new blood and hopefully new ideas into the public sphere. New people tend to question the system, perhaps don’t know what is unachievable and so therefore often accomplish what was previously thought to be “impossible”. In any case, new blood shakes things up bringing change and often progress.
Fourth, while term limits don’t necessarily get a greater variety of people involved in civic life it is more likely to happen with term limits than without them. When people are termed out then someone else needs to step up which makes it more possible that younger people or those who had wanted to serve but couldn’t because of an earlier business or prior family responsibilities now have an opportunity to do so.
Fifth, term limits take some of the “personal” out of politics. When you run for office against an incumbent the race is more about that incumbent. Often times it’s about throwing out the current office holder rather than about the challenger or a new vision. When I ran against George Shanard and won in 1992, people were tired of George for various reasons. I was a credible candidate, so I won. When I ran for Mayor in 2018 after serving 21 years in office (8 in the State Senate, 4 in the State House and 9 on the City Council) people were tired of me and voted for another credible candidate – Bob Everson.
When there is no incumbent, it’s about the issues and what the challengers can bring to the office. A race can still devolve into the personal, but it is less likely. In short, assuming the term limits aren’t too draconian, term limits are a net positive.
Mayor Jordan Hanson has proposed a three term limit for the Mayor and City Council. His idea is a person could serve in an office for nine consecutive years and then have to step aside. After sitting out a time, that person could run again for the same office and serve up to nine years again. I think it is a good proposal.
If one takes a look at past Mayors of Mitchell, you’d be hard pressed to find one – if any – who served four consecutive terms. Those who oppose term limits say, “See, term limits are unnecessary.” However, having the term limit is still a good idea.
City Council could also benefit from term limits. We’re a relatively small town and that small town gets even smaller when divided into four wards. It’s one thing to run against someone you don’t know, but when you’re campaigning against a person personally known to you, perhaps someone from your church or social group maybe a neighbor even, it makes it more awkward and so people don’t run.
When I ran for City Council in 2009, I defeated an incumbent. I had no beef with him, but he declared he wasn’t running, so I threw my hat in the ring. Later he changed his mind and filed for reelection, but by then there were two of us already declared, making it a three-way race. If he was forthright initially about running for reelection, I would not have run. I didn’t agree with everything he said or did, but he was doing his best in a thankless job. The guy was honest and sincerely wanted what was good for Mitchell. But, once I was a candidate, I was going to do everything I could do in order to win.
Most folks have the same attitude I did. The current Mayor and Council Members are sincere, hardworking people, doing what they think is right. There isn’t any real money in public service. There’s not much prestige in public office and there’s quite a few slings and arrows that go with politics, especially these days, so why take on an incumbent?
Term limits open the door to new faces and a different perspective. I often said, when I was in the State Legislature, that if I could waive my magic wand I’d make everyone serve at least two terms in the Legislature. That way, folks could see that doing the “right” thing isn’t always as clear as they seem to think it is. Often, what is “right” isn’t achievable for whatever reason and what is “best” is often just half a loaf. It is incredibly difficult to get anything done in politics. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed the process that way, it’s a feature not a bug of our political system. It is supposed to be slow and difficult to get anything accomplished, so that when something does get done there is a consensus surrounding it as good public policy.
I’d like to see the City of Mitchell give term limits a try. If it doesn’t work, if no one runs for open offices for example, the policy can always be reversed. If term limits are enacted, all those on the City Council now would get to “start over”, in other words have three more terms before having to relinquish office.
My campaign slogan in 1988 was “Give Change A Chance”. People didn’t then, they reelected George Shanard. I hope folks on the City Council are amenable now to giving change a chance in the form of term limits.