Term Limits in Missouri
Voted on in 1992 and fully enacted in 2003, Missouri term limits were meant to eliminate career politicians and protect the freedom of constituents. But has political life found a way to circumvent the system?
In the 1993 blockbuster Jurassic Park, the movie’s scientists claimed they could control the park’s dinosaur population because they had genetically engineered all the animals to be female. Jeff Goldblum’s character, Dr. Ian Malcolm, emphatically warns the scientists that artificial barriers are often circumvented by nature. In his famous quote foreshadowing the ultimate demise of the experimental project, Malcolm says, “I’m simply saying that life finds a way.”
Ironically, a year before Jurassic Park hit the big screen, Missouri voters were asked to decide a statewide ballot issue regarding term limits, known as Amendment 12. On Nov. 3, 1992, more than 75 percent of the 1.6 million votes cast were in favor of term limits.
Although approved in 1992, term limits were not fully enacted until 2003. Now, more than a decade later, have term limits achieved what proponents intended? Or instead, as in Jurassic Park, has life found a way: a way to work within the confines of term limits, a way of out maneuvering the original intent of term limit, a way of creating a new normal? You be the judge.
Although many of the repercussions predicted by those both for and against the measure have not materialized, one thing is certain, the intervening years have done little to mellow the opinions of both proponents and opponents.
Career politicians
One of the original arguments promised term limits would eliminate career politicians. Fred Berry, a constitutional conservative, Republican and president of the Columbia Pachyderm Club, supports term limits for both state and federal officeholders but is most adamant about term limits at the national level.
“We need term limits as part of the answer to end the corruption in Washington,” he says. “Career politicians tend to be more concerned about their careers than protecting the freedom and liberty of their constituents. Over time, it seems an unacceptable level of indifference, greed and hunger for power sets in, and the country, the Constitution and our freedoms be damned.”
Caleb Rowden, a first-term Republican representing Missouri’s 44th District, is on the fence regarding the issue of career politicians and term limits.
“I think term limits have pros and cons,” he says. “I think the main thing I’ve seen is there always being a new infusion of people in office that have new ideas and innovative thoughts on the political process. It can help keep elected officials from getting lazy or stagnant.”
Even Stephen Webber, the Democratic state representative for the 46th District and a vocal opponent of term limits, admits they may have one positive attribute.
“There is the potential for longtime officeholders to become callous,” Webber says. Specifically, Webber points to new legislators having to vote on difficult issues. “I’ve seen freshmen legislators look physically sick when they vote to cut social programs. You don’t see that look in the ones with three or four terms in office.”
David Shorr, a longtime opponent of term limits and partner in charge of the Jefferson City and Columbia law offices of Lathrop and Gage can’t find any reason to support term limits.
“I have never seen the benefit [of term limits],” Shorr says. “All I see is those who take office for the right reasons are removed without a vote of their constituents. At best, it benefits the party out of power by forcing a wanted incumbent from being allowed to run.”
Despite the opinions of either side, the research shows that term limits have had no effect on limiting career politicians if the career move is onward and upward. According to a January 2013 article in State Legislatures magazine, the number of former state legislators serving in the 113th Congress is 49 percent, and that number has hovered around 50 percent for decades — both before and after states enacted term limits. Just as they did prior to term limits, many legislators move from state to national offices, effectively continuing their political careers.
However, the careers of our state legislators are capped at eight years in the Senate and eight years in the House — and it’s a lifetime cap. There’s no re-entering the system as in some other states. Consequently, young officeholders, such as Webber and Rowden, will still be young when they are forced out of office.
“I’m 30 years old and I have served as long or longer than 93 percent of the members of the Missouri House,” Webber says. I’ll be 32 when I cast my last vote as a member of the House, and I can never be elected to the House again.”
Rowden says: “I am in my first term, so I am not impacted by term limits nearly as much as a representative or senator in their final term. I will definitely have to cross that bridge someday though.”
Although no firm data exists outlining where term-limited officeholders next gain employment, should they not seek national office, a comprehensive study authored by David Valentine, associate director of the University of Missouri’s Institute of Public Policy, says that term limits might have had the unintended consequence of having officeholders focus more rather than less on their career plans.
The study states the aftermath of term limits has caused “a more competitive environment, as potential candidates jockey for positions both within and without the Legislature.” Because term limits decrease opportunities for political advancement, “many legislators are focused on a nonelective next step,” according to Valentine.
Influence of lobbyists
That brings us to the other main purpose for mandating term limits: to decrease lobbyist influence.
Webber laments term limits and their impact on his ability to represent his constituents. “Constitutionally, I can’t run for the House again, but lobby firms can hire me; any big business could hire me,” he says. According to Webber, he’s unlikely to opt for either of those career choices, but his point is that it’s perfectly legal to do so.
In fact, last August, Republican Speaker of the House Steve Tilley left the Legislature with five months remaining in his term to accept a position with a lobbying firm. Ditto for Democrat and Minority Leader Mike Talboy.
Berry offers a historical explanation for the enormous influence of lobbyists on our elected officials. He views the adoption of the 16th and 17th Amendments as detrimental to the original intent of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment authorized Congress to levy income taxes, and the 17th Amendment gave the power to elect senators to the people. Prior to that, senators had been appointed by their state legislatures.
Berry cites Alexander Hamilton, who supported term limits, but says he believes Hamilton would be of a different mind were he alive today.
“However, what Alexander could not predict is that our country would adopt the 16th and 17th Amendments, which incorporated much of the corruption that we see in Washington today, especially with respect to the income tax and how it rewards lobbyists and elected officials to win favors for the organizations the lobbyists represent and to fund the coffers of elected officials,” Berry says.
Like the wily dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, lobbyists have found a way to remain influential, despite term limits. Valentine’s study states lobbyists used to build long-term relationships with powerful, “entrenched incumbents.” Because that is no longer an option, lobbyists now seek out new legislators who share “compatible policy interests and those assigned to the committees likely to handle their issues.”
The study goes on to state that lobbyists even sometimes get involved prior to elections by backing a particular candidate who shares views or policies friendly to the lobbyist’s cause.
According to Webber, term limits have shifted power away from the legislature and toward three main entities. “It’s taken power away from representatives and given it to the governor’s office, to leadership positions such as speaker of the house and to lobbyists,” he says. “Lobbyists have become far more powerful.”
Institutional memory and leadership
Although term limits didn’t exactly achieve what they set out to do, some find it more troubling that by limiting one’s ability to serve, we have weakened rather than strengthened our Legislature.
“Term limits compromise leadership,” Shorr says. “We are creating a leadership void where experience and the art of compromise are lost in favor of a quick fix that never comes. We also lose the benefit of the institutional memory of previous debate.”
Rowden is struggling with the issue of term limits and examining both sides. “The flip side [of that] is a lack of institutional knowledge that really allows people to truly understand the process and allows them to be as effective as they can be,” he says. “It’s truly a double-edged sword.”
For Webber, the real loser in a term-limited legislature is the ability to make long-term policy changes. “Most tax cuts are phased in over a long period of time,” he says. “We don’t have the ability to put together cohesive, coherent, long-term policies because the people are always changing.”
Research studies, both local and national, do point to a lack of tenure in leadership positions in states with term limits. For example, prior to term limits, most leadership positions were held by officeholders with an average of eight to 14 years of experience. With term limits, elected officials with an average of four years experience hold most leadership positions. Although widely accepted, it still has not been proven that a lack of tenure equals a lack of knowledge.
Whether experience equals knowledge or not, the learning curve for incoming legislators is far steeper than for their pre-term-limited predecessors. States with term limits have taken several steps to ramp up knowledge acquisition. In Missouri, the state sponsors a two-week bus tour for freshmen legislators to acquaint them with the scope and breadth of the issues they’ll be facing.
The future of term limits
Missouri is one of 15 states with term limits. Twenty-one states originally passed term limit legislation, but six states have repealed it, either through their legislatures or their courts. Although local proponents and opponents of term limits disagree on most every aspect of the issue, they all agree on one thing: It is highly unlikely that term limits will be repealed in Missouri. For one, it’s a constitutional amendment and very hard to overturn. Second, if it were to become a ballot issue, it’s unlikely there would be much money to fund a statewide campaign for the cause.
Webber holds out hope that perhaps term limits can be adjusted. In fact, he says a bill proposing minor modifications did make it out of the House last term but ended its journey there.
First-term legislators such as Rowden, who are still scrutinizing the issue, may hold the key to the future of term limits in our state.
“Frankly, I am not sure where I am on this issue as of now,” Rowden says. “One could make the argument that if an officeholder isn’t representing their constituents well, they can get voted out. And while that is true, it is very hard to knock off an incumbent in today’s political climate, which would be an argument for term limits. I really see both sides on this one.”