![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.png)
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (2)
The limits approved by voters 16 years ago appear to be having the desired effect. Turnover in the legislative ranks brings fresh ideas and viewpoints to the legislature, and the fiefdoms created by longtime legislators have been eliminated.
Critics of term limits, including U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, say they should be eliminated and let voters decide how long to keep legislators in office. This year, state Rep. Gayle Kingery of Poplar Bluff has proposed a constitutional amendment that would replace the current limits with a limit of 16 years total in either chamber of the legislature.
Efforts to change the limits have, over the years, failed to get much attention. In part, that's because most Missourians are happy with term limits. So why change the limits? Unless there is a clear defect in term limits that is having a serious negative effect on the state's fortunes, let's leave the term limits alone.
Comments
I work for the legislative research division of a state department. As I go to hearings and listen to the testimony of state department officials, policy staff, and lobbyists, there is a noticeable difference from before the enactment of term limits. Legislators used to be able to develop an expertise in a specific area, with a deep understanding of the issues related to that area of legislation.
However, with term limits, there is no time to accumulate such knowledge; also, due to a limited timeframe, many legislators do not bother even trying to adequately understand an issue. It is much easier to focus on pet projects instead of being concerned about the larger picture and the good of Missourians as a whole.
More than ever, legislators are relying on staff and state department officials who are exempt from term limits and thus have years of experience and a deep understanding of the issues surrounding a specific area of policy. While this can be an exciting opportunity for state department and staff employees to play an even greater role in writing and developing policy, I am not sure that it is the best thing for Missouri citizens.
Also, lobbyists have even greater influence in shaping policy, as legislators are not as equipped to decipher the reality of the situation. Wouldn't we rather have the decision-makers with the voting power in the General Assembly to be the experts on policy?
Further, America is a democracy which is based upon the will of the people. If we the people want a legislator to serve more than 8 years in the House, we should have that choice. If we want to remove a legislator and replace him/her with "fresh blood," we have the power to vote him/her out of office. Taking away such choice is undemocratic and demonstrates a lack of trust in the ability of the people to decide for ourselves who would best serve our interests.
I agree with KristinaL. Too often, legislators rely on 'bureaucrats' that have been in place far too long themselves who have lost touch with anything that goes on outside Jefferson City. OR lobbyist. At least if they are going to be up for re-election more than once, they might pay more attention and listen to voters a little more.
It takes awhile to learn how things work on a new job. When you get someone good, it would be nice to keep them there long enough to do some good with what they learn.