Martin Dyckman
The term limits initiative that Florida voters put into the Constitution in 1992 was one of the most popular issues ever, passing with 3,625,500 “yes” votes to only 1,097,127 against it.
But what it has done to the Legislature makes it one of the costliest mistakes in Florida history. The voters deserve an opportunity to fix it. There are ways.
One would be to lengthen the limits from eight years to 10 or 12 — a hard sell, to be sure.
Or they could be replaced altogether with a provision entitling voters to recall legislators who forget whom they’re supposed to represent. This would be particularly healthy in light of the pitifully low competition in regular elections, and for that reason might be more attractive to voters.
Since that proposal would go straight into the Legislature’s trash cans, it would depend on a sympathetic Constitution Revision Commission in 2017. That depends, in turn, on electing Charlie Crist governor and George Sheldon attorney general.
The existing term limits have replaced institutional wisdom with institutional ignorance, strengthening the influence of the lobbying corps and especially its cadre of ex-legislators.
The initiative has done little if anything to encourage overall turnover and in some cases has worked the other way, inducing potential candidates to wait for open seats rather than challenge incumbents. It’s one of the reasons — gerrymandering being the main one — nearly half the districts are uncontested on the Nov. 4 ballot.
The worst of it has been to magnify the dictatorial powers of legislative leaders, especially in the House.
With only eight years to accomplish anything, a new legislator understands that to get along means going along with the Speaker’s agenda and his committee chairs. Before term limits, a legislator who didn’t want to be in harness could wait out a series of unfriendly speakers or Senate presidents. Conservatives and liberals took turns at doing that.
Johnnie Byrd, the least popular and arguably worst speaker in decades, got the gavel for 2003-2004 because term limits had purged the competition and the throng of Republican freshmen knew little about him when they had to vote, other than that they had better get on board his train.
When he boasted that his members were “like sheep,” waiting for him to tell them what to do, it wasn’t much of an exaggeration. Even Democrats who had considered his predecessor Tom Feeney too partisan were wishing they had Feeney back.
“At least he would listen to us,” one of them told me.
Another flaw is that term limits apply unequally within the Senate.
It specifies not simply how long members can serve but how many consecutive years – eight — they can have before being barred from the ballot. Theoretically, a member popular enough to win as a write-in candidate could serve for life.
During redistricting every 10 years, the 40 Senate seats are staggered, half beginning with two-year terms, the rest with four. A newcomer — or a veteran member returning from retirement — can win one of those two-year terms and wind up serving 10. That’s because he or she will have been there for only six — one term of two and one of four — when the third election comes around.
The term limit sponsors had schemed to flummox the federal courts into believing that the issue was only “ballot access,” not qualification for office. They wanted to term-limit senators and U.S. representatives too. Since the Florida campaign was part of a national movement, one suspects Congress was their real target.
The federal courts weren’t fooled, ruling — as expected — that the U.S. Constitution defines the qualifications of members of Congress and states can’t change them even indirectly.
The limits remained in effect for the Florida Legislature and Cabinet. (The governor was already restricted to two consecutive terms.)
The term limit movement was inspired largely by anti-government ideologues. They capitalized on the public’s poor perception of politicians and its well-founded belief that the system favors special interests.
The cure to what really ails us is to make every election competitive. That means getting rid of gerrymandering, overturning the Citizens United atrocity, and restoring limits on all campaign spending. That Florida on its own can accomplish only the first part of that is no reason not to begin.
Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times. He lives near Waynesville, North Carolina. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
