Term Limits Debate Coming To SC
A bill limiting the number of terms S.C. lawmakers can serve has been pre-filed by Lowcountry Sen. Ray Cleary, commencing what could become a contentious debate this coming year.
Or – more likely – Cleary’s proposal will get buried and this is the absolute last you’ll hear of it.
Anyway, Cleary’s bill would limit S.C. House members to serving six 2-year terms (i.e. twelve years) and S.C. Senators to serving four 4-year terms (i.e. sixteen years).
No restriction is made for “swapping chambers,” which means individual lawmakers could serve up to 28 years total in both chambers under Cleary’s plan.
Nationally, fifteen state legislatures currently have term limits, while voters in six other states passed term limits only to have them overturned by lawmakers (twice) or the state’s Supreme Court (four times).
Incidentally, South Carolina’s current governor is a term-limits supporter, having been one of the few U.S. Congressmen to honor his pledged three-term limit after the issue was a central (and unfulfilled) promise of 1994’s aborted “Contract With America.”
Comments
By Colonel Moultrie & Senator Thurmond Say on December 26th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
To throw the baby out with the bath water is open to question…
By From Lexing-town on December 26th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Since TuneageMan is apparently a “little late” I invite you to enjoy one of my favorites…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfFAsbbL2v8
BTW — where is BIN?
BIN — wanna race?
By Chris on December 27th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I am, and always have been, a huge fan of term limits. I know the 100 reasons why they are great – but would honestly like to hear any reasonable argument against them. Anyone?
By Cliff on December 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
We need term limits in this state. These good ole boys can stay in office a hundred years. No one wants to run against them, when the Republican Caucus gives them 5K for their campaigns.
By Ron on December 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Good evening friends and Happy New Year to you all (yawl)!
I agree that our state needs term limits, however it won’t ever happen until and unless we have “intiative, referendum and recall”. It will be a cold day in hell when our General Assembly votes to authorize a constitutional ammendment that would enable we the people to reform government. It’s a known fact that “government will not reform itself”, and “the professional politician” is part of the problem. I wish that i could be more positive but this is an exercise in futility until we have I,R and R and it won’t happen.
Again, Happy New Year to each of you!
Ron Turner
Summerville
By lou on December 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
ONE TERM term limits. These geezers take the seats for life but fail to represent We the People.
By Gene on December 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
We need term limits on every level from Municipal on up, but that will never happen because you have too many elected making a living off of favors given and received.
By From Chucktown on December 29th, 2008 at 5:38 am
The General Assembly will never agree to term limits…once they get a taste of power, they can’t let it go. It’s called the voting booth, if you don’t like what is going on, then vote against the incumbent and if you don’t vote, then you have no right to complain.
By Recovering Lobbyist on December 29th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I can give you two compelling reasons why term limits are bad:
1: Very few legislators actually serve longer than the limits proposed by Sen. Cleary. Sure, there are some high-profile examples that counter my argument, but 12 years in the House and 16 years in the Senate is a long time, and few legislators stay longer.
2: Term limits eliminate experience. The result is even greater influence by legislative staff and lobbyists. California is exhibit A as to why South Carolina shouldn’t go to term limits. After enacting term limits, two things happened: a) the experience left their legislature (they had freshman legislators chairing committees); and b) politicians got creative in jumping from one elected position to another to keep the paycheck coming. The result was even greater influence of money and special interests as politicians moved from office to office.
The best term limits are those imposed by voters.
By Robin Biro on December 29th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I see both sides of the argument, but it seems to me that the benefits to having term limits outweigh the cons…
True, we might lose a few well-regarded politicians in the process, and true, there would be somewhat of a learning curve as newcomers catch up to speed, but not only would term limits help keep our elected officials honest and protect the public trust, they would help rid our state legislature of some serious political dead weight and clear the way for more people who truly cared more about the job at hand than about getting re-elected and/or gaining seniority and power.
One thing is certain – we can’t maintain the status quo here in SC and expect for things to get any better here.
By roger on December 30th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Chris, I can certainly understand your support for term limits. While there are many good reasons for them, there is at least one powerful reason to oppose them — we are resorting to imposing a mandate to do what is ultimately the responsibility of the voters. We do have term limits through the election process. The power to “throw the bums out” is still ours. We are constantly trying to “fix” the system with band-aids. We don’t like campaign tactics, we mandate campaign finance reform. That, of course, makes things worse, so we keep trying to fix the fixes. Term limits won’t change anything. That’s the lazy approach. In fact, there will likely be even less accountability and transparency than there is today. Every budget will be loaded up on the favors and perks to get it while the gettin’ is good. Citizens will be even less motivated to pay attention to what’s happening in Columbia, and lobbyists will be the only ones legislators hear from.
The power of incumbency is a problem, but it is still in our power to fix that. A massive overhaul of our government structure is the only thing that will ever make a difference in our state. That and real transparency would ensure that politicians would be accountable no matter how long they were in power. We need to stop being lazy as a citizenry and demand serious change and stop settling for anything less. A longshot, but not impossible. After all, our country exists because citizens finally had enough of being oppressed by an arrogant king who didn’t care about them.
By GW on December 30th, 2008 at 7:40 am
We have term limits now – it’s called Election Day.
If our Republican friends want reform, why don’t they start with spending reform and start acting like the leaders they purport to be? This is the biggest bunch of hooey to come out of Cola in some time.
If people dont believe Election Day can limit terms, take a look at the landscape in Washington. The big government Republicans have been given a one way ticket back to Kansas because they have lost the right to govern.
Happy New Year to all
By Chris on December 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
There are some decent arguments against term limits, but unfortunately they all rely upon one thing: An Educated Voter. The readers of this blog aside, if you walked out on the street and asked “Who is the representative from your district?” or “Name the senators from SC in the US Congress” I would bet a year’s pay that less than 5% of registered voters could answer those questions. The people that do get off the couch and go vote do so for a President…rarely anyone or anything else (with a few exceptions like Prop 8 in CA). More often than not it is the last sign they saw on the corner, who looked “hot” on TV, or by party. And that is another major issue…the party system is way past broken. When Bloomberg wins as a Republican…as do many in this state…then the term is utterly meaningless.
The above points are key to counter the “Voting booth IS term limits” argument, since, unfortunately, the voting booth is broken for most choices below “President”.
Will voters in this “30-Second Attention Span Society” educate themselves? Never. Politicians know this. Look at Obama – his campaign was on “change”. Most of the people that voted for him couldn’t tell you the first thing about his political track record or voting history – but they were unhappy with the status quo (OK, so was I) and picked up on the word Change. The man is brilliant, I give him that. Anyone who thinks that the Democratic Party did so well in the election because the voters wanted those particular individuals simply is ignorant and doesn’t leave the comfort of CNN. The VAST majority of voters went Obama…and followed the Democratic ticket all the way down. You could have had a dead person on the D ticket and I am certain he would have won.
Term limits, as I see them, are an impossible dream by which professional politicians would agree to have some integrity. Change is good. It works for businesses. It can work for government. Have you seen our SC Senate chambers lately? Looks like a retirement village. You telling me these guys are in touch with the lives and needs of the average voter in SC? HA!
I am sure a mathematical formula could be derived showed the inverse productivity levels versus the length in office. There are always statistical anomalies, but by definition they are rare. Real term limits – 8 years in House AND/OR Senate would go a long way to improving things.
Political careers are much like life. When you are young you do bold things, take chances, make changes, are not afraid to try new things. As you get old you are less productive and more focused on self preservation – staying alive – while you literally rot and wait to die. Sure, some of the new blood would make mistakes. The $64,000 question: Could it get much worse?
By JMM on April 17th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The Constitution of the United States, in 1787, provided the one and only surefire method of providing term limits. The Constitution set the term of each member of each house of Congress. The Constitution gave the citizens the right to vote. We the People determine the limit on a lawmakers term by our vote.
If we voters took our reswponsibility seriously and informed ourselves on the records of those in office, rather than being lead by the political campaign adds, we would have term limits. When Congress had an apporval rating of 13% before the November 2008 election, about 90 % of legislators up for re-election were left in their position.
The only way to clear up the corruption and non-representative nature of elected officials in for voters to clean house. If, in the next three national elections, every voter voted against the incumbent, we would have a whole new Congress by 2014. The original Congress had no experience but they had the good of the newly formed Nation to guide them. We can have the same in 2014. We the People have the power.