Citizens of the state of Oklahoma passed 12-year term limits for their
legislators in 1990 which became effective in 1992. Incumbents who have
remained continuously in office since 1992 will not be allowed to serve in
their current offices starting in 2004. Over four dozen Oklahoma
legislators are expected to be affected by the law resulting in a turnover
in the state legislature of as much as 40 percent in a single year.
Oklahoma is one of seventeen states that currently have term limit rules
for their state legislatures. Idaho legislators recently overrode their
governor’s veto to repeal that state’s term limit provisions. Likewise,
the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled against its term limit law. According to
the Wall Street Journal, efforts are underway in California, Florida,
Maine, and Michigan to extend the length of terms (Caffrey & Bensen,
2002).
Several arguments have been offered in support of term limits.
Perhaps the most common reason proffered for term limits is the
expectation that opportunities for citizens to become politically active
will increase. As such, supporters reason that legislators will become
less dependent upon special interests. Supporters also hope that term
limits will encourage legislators to become active reformers while they
have the chance. In addition, terms limits should help balance power
throughout the legislature by filtering out centers of influence based on
seniority. Recent polls suggest that the Oklahoma public overwhelmingly
continues to support term limits (82%) even as its full implementation
approaches (Clay, 2001).
Probably the most strident criticism against a policy of term limitation
is that it is inherently anti-democratic. In short, it limits voter
options. Special interests are said to gain power by sending experienced
lobbyists to influence unseasoned lawmakers. The resulting lack of
experience might also force representatives to become excessively reliant
on unelected staff and bureaucrats. On the legislative front, term limits
might also prevent representatives from gaining sufficient experience for
making effective policy.
Hendricks recently argued that the training for Oklahoma legislators
should be reformed and expanded to help deal with some of the special
challenges facing a term-limited legislature (Hendricks, 2002).
The respondents to the latest survey of the Oklahoma League of Political Scientists contrasted markedly with the sizable popular support for term limits among the rest of the Oklahoma citizenry. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the respondents failed to see the value of term limits in encouraging the practice of deliberative democracy. Almost three-fourths (73%) of the political scientists surveyed did not see term limits as an effective means to prevent the undue influence of special interest groups. As for other alternatives, over seventy percent (70%) of the participating political scientists disagreed that a requirement for a super majority of 60% vote of the people for legislators to serve beyond 12 years would be an improvement over term limits or their elimination.
Caffrey, Andrew & Benson, Mitchell. (2002, March 4). Term
Limits Have Unexpected Outcomes: Politicians Take Lower Offices, Try New
Ways to Extend Careers. Wall Street Journal. P. A-16.
Clay, Diane Plumberg. (2001, September 2). 82 Percent Back Limits, Poll
Shows Most Support Adding Offices to Affected List. The Daily Oklahoman.
P. 1-A.
Hendricks, Jeremy. (2002, Spring/Summer). Bringing New Legislators Up to
Speed: Legislative Training in the Wake of Term Limits. Oklahoma Policy
Studies Review, 3.1, 8-13.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This
survey is published for the information of the people of Oklahoma and does
not reflect any particular political viewpoint or position of individual
members, the Advisory Board, any of the members’ employers, or the
University of Central Oklahoma.