Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Book says term limits are partly to blame for Michigan’s budget mess

By Kevin Shopshire | 10.22.07 | 11:05 pm

Wayne State University Professor Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson blames the inexperience of Michigan’s 148 legislators, caused by term limits, for the state government shutdown and failure of the Michigan Legislature to pass a balanced budget on time this fall.

“This is a perfect example of the lack of experience,” said Sarbaugh-Thompson, author of the book “The Political and Institutional Effects of Term Limits.”  “An experienced legislature would not have let this get so far down the road.”

Sarbaugh-Thompson is a professor of public administration, public policy and American politics. She has spent the last 10 years researching the effects of term limits in Michigan that limit legislators to serve six years in the House and eight years in the Senate. The limits went into effect in 1998. Her book, published in 2004 with four other professors, looks at the effects of term limits in other states as well as Michigan.

She said the inexperience of the House and Senate leadership are also to blame for the shutdown and not being able to get a budget done on time. Sarbaugh-Thompson pointed to the fact that both House and Senate members on both sides of the aisle conceded they needed a tax increase to balance the budget, but no one was willing to work a deal or compromise. She said it takes at least two terms to be comfortable in the House, but there are freshman representatives chairing important committees.

Continued -“If you think of it in terms of the business community, why would you make a junior executive the CEO,” she said. “They spend so much of their time just trying to get up to speed and understand what’s going on.”

Sarbaugh-Thompson said the issue of taxes is another example of the problems with term limits. She points at the tax cuts for 15 straight years as an example and former Gov. John Engler’s role in that. A strong, long-serving executive was able to ramrod harmful tax cuts by an inexperienced Legislature with no real decrease in spending, showing how term limits can have a negative effect on the separation of powers.

“The real mistake was the Engler tax cuts,” Sarbaugh-Thompson said. “He drained the rainy day fund and did not cut spending.
“He did not have a strong legislature that could ride herd on him. ”

Sarbaugh-Thompson said the race to cut taxes has forced cuts on the very things that attract people and companies to Michigan. She pointed to the Infrastructure Report Card put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers that gives Michigan’s infrastructure a grade of D-minus.  Many state roads are so bad it costs auto owners an average of $300 a year in extra maintenance costs, and road congestion in the Detroit area costs commuters $939 per person per year in excess fuel and lost time.

“The thing that people do not understand is that when you cut taxes it costs people more,” she said. “The roads are the perfect example.”

She said term limits have not accomplished anything its backers claimed it would accomplish when it was sold to Michigan voters, who approved the constitutional amendment in 1992.

It was said more people would run for office, and voter turnout would increase because of the increased competition for more open seats. That has not happened, and her research shows voter turnout remains low. There is more competition for open seats in the primary, but traditionally primaries have always had low voter turnout. There is less competition in the general election because Republicans who controlled both the House and Senate in 2001 drew the district boundaries to make safe Republicans districts, making the general election less important than the primary in many districts, she maintains. It has worked so well that in the last election in 2006 more people voted for Democratic Senate candidates, but Republicans still maintained their 21-17 seat advantage.

The inexperience caused by term limits has also given lobbyists much more influence over legislators as they try to figure out complex issues and bills. Lobbyists have always assisted with drafting legislation, but that role has expanded under term limits. Sarbaugh-Thompson said a lobbyist pushing an important piece of legislation can safely mislead a lawmaker, and by the time the legislator catches on they have been term-limited.

“Proponents of term limits promised they would sever the cozy relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers, but it has not happened,” she said. “You have to ask someone for answers.”

Term limits has also caused serious partisan polarization in Lansing. Because the only real races are in the primary, candidates have had to play to the extreme base of their party. The leaders are more extreme than in the past, and it has led to legislators having to signs inflexible things like anti-tax pledges that ties their hands in working toward good government. Often, party loyalty has taken over for loyalty to the state and the residents. That tends to disenfranchise at least half the residents at all times, she believes.

“The state should be governed from the middle,” Sarbaugh-Thompson said. “You really need to be in the middle to govern for the commonwealth of the people.”

Term limits also have politicians looking for their next political office before they even have a proper understanding of their current job. Often, decisions and floor votes are made more based on how they will play in their next primary election than how they  will help Michigan. Many people believe this is the reason it has taken so long to get a budget completed in October, a process that’s usually done by June.

“They are more politically ambitious than ever,” Sarbaugh-Thompson said. “Future elections are playing a huge role in what is going on today.”

Of the 15 states that have term limits, Michigan, Arkansas and California have the shortest. Sarbaugh-Thompson supports at a minimum lengthening the time legislators can serve, giving them 12 years in each body. But she prefers getting rid of the limits altogether.

“You can vote for a convicted felon after 20 years, but you can’t vote for your state representative after six years,” she said. “My philosophy is that voters are smart enough to know who isn’t doing the job, but that doesn’t poll well.”

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce has proposed a term-limits change that allows the lawmaker to serve 14 years, all in one chamber or in combination. The Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee is expected to hold hearings soon on a proposal that would cut the number of years a lawmaker can serve from the current 14 to 12, but they could serve it all in one chamber.

Comments

  • chetly

    Come on Blaming the budget crisis on term-limits?  That’s the fundamentally flawed assumption of this piece, but there are more smaller flaws than I can count.

    Polarization increasing because of term-limits?  Then why has federal politics – not subject to term-limits – also polarized?  A better argument can be made that America generally is more polarized, for reasons including the internet (or maybe its just a lag attributable to TV’s dominance) and mostly simply just politicians.  I’ll bet if you looked at other states, you’d find polarization too, and most of them don’t have term-limits because most states don’t have citizen initiatives.  And we’re in a one-state recession – you’d expect a greater polarization here at this time independent of term-limit existence.

    And why would “future elections” not play a “huge role” in a politician’s life who had the opporunity to run for the remainder of their life (actually, the opportunity for more future elections)?

    Finally, why would term limits only enhance primary competitiveness and somehow magically make generals less competitive.  She has a good beef about district drawing (but it didn’t start with Republicans, Democrats have done it for years too), but that’s not term-limits.  Generals that aren’t competitive aren’t competitive because they were drawn that way, or by chance if you’re more charitable to the motivations of those drawing them.

    Term-limits certainly create more competitive primaries because in “safe districts” people actually have an opportunity every 6 or 8 years to change, whereas before very few people would challenge an incumbent in their own party.  There have always been safe districts and always been competitive ones.  In competitive districts, you still have moderates duking it out and if a primary “moves its party too far to right or left”, the party will pay the price for that mistake and lose the seat, so the process of evolution (and usually even partisan voters in cross-over districts are more moderate, so you have to appeal to them) will eventually lead the party to move its choices back to the middle.

    Why term-limits?  Because once people get in office they can use the power of incumbency in so many ways, and that doesn’t even count the psychological power of incumbency.  Take away the powers of incumbency (and I’m not talking the token stuff CoC is proposing on lobbying time-limits), and I’ll think about no term limits.  That’s why they are popular.  It’s not because people don’t “trust themselves” or other voters to “make the right decisions,” they don’t trust the collective powers of incumbency to use their power to perpetuate themselves, so they put a check on that power.  Incumbency may be a small edge, but edges are always measured “at the margin”. 

  • chetly

    You know, it dawns on me That this article should have attempted to contact someone from the pro-term-limits side.  If I remember correctly, the well-known Detroit-area economist Patrick Anderson was involved back in 1992.

    Perhaps a follow-up article quoting someone at length in respnose to Ms. Sarbaugh-Thompson will be forthcoming from MM?

  • Kevin Shopshire

    Thanks for the comments

    Thanks for the comments, but I must disagree with you.

    I don’t think there is anything better than the budget fiasco to truly demonstrate how badly term limits have failed. Term limits not only contributed to the deficit by allowing a strong executive to walk over inexperienced legislators by pushing through irresponsive tax cuts, but also because what should have been done in July did not get done until Oct. 1. When was the last time state government shut down? We had a worse situation in 1983 with the same $1.8 billon deficit, but unemployment was at double digits at a whopping 17 percent. They managed to get it done without a government shutdown.

    Yes, “Polarization increasing because of term-limits.” You proved my point when you said, “Term-limits certainly create more competitive primaries” in the fourth paragraph. What does it take to win a primary when you have people from the same party who hold the basic views? Depending on the party, you play to either the extreme right or left.

    You need no better example of what a huge role term limits play in future elections than Mike Bishop. Republicans publicly admitted it would take three things to balance the budget: cuts, reform and new revenue. The Senate passed some cuts, but it still left almost billons dollars short of a balanced budget, knowing it absolutely had to be made up with new taxes. But he refused to let any Republicans vote for it knowing it had to be done just so when he runs for governor he can say he held the line on taxes. I don’t understand why Chris Ward and Valde Garcia are saying their political careers are over because they voted for the tax increase. Of course their careers are over, they are term-limited. I guess they should have been thinking about their next political job like everyone else. Proponents of term limits said it would eliminate that, and lawmakers would be free to vote for what’s best for the state and not for their political career. You can’t possibly believe that has happened?

    I don’t think the “power of incumbency” outweighs the fact that we have people who have only been on the job for two years being in charge of a budget of $42 billon that touches the lives of 10 million people. I should be able to vote for who ever I want to. I can’t do that today. The simple fact is every argument used to pass term limits has proven to be false. I suggest you read the book. I know I did not do it justice, and as soon as I find a copy I plan to read it. Like the professor said, at the very least they should be made longer. Even the state chamber favors extending them. I just don’t see how any one can disagree the inexperience and lack of trust among lawmakers did not have an effect on the budget.

    I based my story on a woman who spent 10 years of academic study on the effects of term limits. I don’t know if your guy has those kind of credentials, but email me his contact info and I will call him.

  • chetly

    Come on Blaming the budget crisis on term-limits?  That's the fundamentally flawed assumption of this piece, but there are more smaller flaws than I can count.

    Polarization increasing because of term-limits?  Then why has federal politics – not subject to term-limits – also polarized?  A better argument can be made that America generally is more polarized, for reasons including the internet (or maybe its just a lag attributable to TV's dominance) and mostly simply just politicians.  I'll bet if you looked at other states, you'd find polarization too, and most of them don't have term-limits because most states don't have citizen initiatives.  And we're in a one-state recession – you'd expect a greater polarization here at this time independent of term-limit existence.

    And why would “future elections” not play a “huge role” in a politician's life who had the opporunity to run for the remainder of their life (actually, the opportunity for more future elections)?

    Finally, why would term limits only enhance primary competitiveness and somehow magically make generals less competitive.  She has a good beef about district drawing (but it didn't start with Republicans, Democrats have done it for years too), but that's not term-limits.  Generals that aren't competitive aren't competitive because they were drawn that way, or by chance if you're more charitable to the motivations of those drawing them.

    Term-limits certainly create more competitive primaries because in “safe districts” people actually have an opportunity every 6 or 8 years to change, whereas before very few people would challenge an incumbent in their own party.  There have always been safe districts and always been competitive ones.  In competitive districts, you still have moderates duking it out and if a primary “moves its party too far to right or left”, the party will pay the price for that mistake and lose the seat, so the process of evolution (and usually even partisan voters in cross-over districts are more moderate, so you have to appeal to them) will eventually lead the party to move its choices back to the middle.

    Why term-limits?  Because once people get in office they can use the power of incumbency in so many ways, and that doesn't even count the psychological power of incumbency.  Take away the powers of incumbency (and I'm not talking the token stuff CoC is proposing on lobbying time-limits), and I'll think about no term limits.  That's why they are popular.  It's not because people don't “trust themselves” or other voters to “make the right decisions,” they don't trust the collective powers of incumbency to use their power to perpetuate themselves, so they put a check on that power.  Incumbency may be a small edge, but edges are always measured “at the margin”. 

  • chetly

    You know, it dawns on me That this article should have attempted to contact someone from the pro-term-limits side.  If I remember correctly, the well-known Detroit-area economist Patrick Anderson was involved back in 1992.

    Perhaps a follow-up article quoting someone at length in respnose to Ms. Sarbaugh-Thompson will be forthcoming from MM?

  • LoRayne Apo-Joynt

    Thank you for your comment We will take your feedback under advisement.

    One of the objectives of this site is to cover the under-covered news and perspectives that do not surface in mainstream media.  The perspective in this particular article has not received the same volume of coverage that the opposing viewpoint has received since 1991.  There are numerous web and news sites that promote the status quo of highly limited terms and little to promote a more moderate perspective.

  • Kevin Shopshire

    Thanks for the comments

    Thanks for the comments, but I must disagree with you.

    I don't think there is anything better than the budget fiasco to truly demonstrate how badly term limits have failed. Term limits not only contributed to the deficit by allowing a strong executive to walk over inexperienced legislators by pushing through irresponsive tax cuts, but also because what should have been done in July did not get done until Oct. 1. When was the last time state government shut down? We had a worse situation in 1983 with the same $1.8 billon deficit, but unemployment was at double digits at a whopping 17 percent. They managed to get it done without a government shutdown.

    Yes, “Polarization increasing because of term-limits.” You proved my point when you said, “Term-limits certainly create more competitive primaries” in the fourth paragraph. What does it take to win a primary when you have people from the same party who hold the basic views? Depending on the party, you play to either the extreme right or left.

    You need no better example of what a huge role term limits play in future elections than Mike Bishop. Republicans publicly admitted it would take three things to balance the budget: cuts, reform and new revenue. The Senate passed some cuts, but it still left almost billons dollars short of a balanced budget, knowing it absolutely had to be made up with new taxes. But he refused to let any Republicans vote for it knowing it had to be done just so when he runs for governor he can say he held the line on taxes. I don't understand why Chris Ward and Valde Garcia are saying their political careers are over because they voted for the tax increase. Of course their careers are over, they are term-limited. I guess they should have been thinking about their next political job like everyone else. Proponents of term limits said it would eliminate that, and lawmakers would be free to vote for what's best for the state and not for their political career. You can't possibly believe that has happened?

    I don't think the “power of incumbency” outweighs the fact that we have people who have only been on the job for two years being in charge of a budget of $42 billon that touches the lives of 10 million people. I should be able to vote for who ever I want to. I can't do that today. The simple fact is every argument used to pass term limits has proven to be false. I suggest you read the book. I know I did not do it justice, and as soon as I find a copy I plan to read it. Like the professor said, at the very least they should be made longer. Even the state chamber favors extending them. I just don't see how any one can disagree the inexperience and lack of trust among lawmakers did not have an effect on the budget.

    I based my story on a woman who spent 10 years of academic study on the effects of term limits. I don't know if your guy has those kind of credentials, but email me his contact info and I will call him.

  • http://all-in-all-blog.blogspot.com/ TV Shows

    I don’t think there is anything better than the budget fiasco to truly demonstrate how badly term limits have failed. Term limits not only contributed to the deficit by allowing a strong executive to walk over inexperienced legislators by pushing through irresponsive tax cuts, but also because what should have been done in July did not get done until Oct. 1. When was the last time state government shut down? We had a worse situation in 1983 with the same $1.8 billon deficit, but unemployment was at double digits at a whopping 17 percent. They managed to get it done without a government shutdown.

  • LoRayne Apo-Joynt

    Thank you for your comment We will take your feedback under advisement.

    One of the objectives of this site is to cover the under-covered news and perspectives that do not surface in mainstream media.  The perspective in this particular article has not received the same volume of coverage that the opposing viewpoint has received since 1991.  There are numerous web and news sites that promote the status quo of highly limited terms and little to promote a more moderate perspective.