Senator DeMint wants term limits in Congress

Examiner.com

Senator DeMint of South Carolina will soon be introducing a constitutional amendment that will limit members of Congress to three terms (six years) in the House of Representatives and two terms ( 12 years) in in the United States Senate. After serving ten years in the Senate, Senator DeMint said he has come to believe that Washington D.C. "has the power to corrupt even those with the most honorable intentions" He further related that, career politicians ended up, "beholden to special interests, lobbyists, and big government policies."

The Senator's rational for term limits appears to be directed at the need for politicians to start campaigning for the next election shortly after they are elected in the House and following four years in the Senate. By doing so, career politicians spend much of their time campaigning rather than legislating. DeMint believes that by imposing term limits congress will be filled with an ever changing skill set of new ideas and fresh perspectives in congress. Term limits he says, "will keep politicians in-tune with their constituents and less focused on pleasing those who promise to help get them re-elected."

According to US Term Limits (USTL) Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 36 states place term limits on their constitutional officers. USTL states, “We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a tyrannical ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.”

Term Limits are already in place for the chief executive of the United States. The President is limited to two terms by the twenty-second amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1947. The Governors of thirty-six states also have various term limits in place. The rational for limiting the chief executive to two terms was to prevent a possible dictatorship. Back in 1776, Thomas Jefferson stated at the Continental Congress that term limits were necessary, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress.”

Those against a term limit amendment argue that term limits are already in place, they are called elections. They relate that a term limit amendment limits a voters first amendment rights of free speech by limiting the ability to elect anyone they choose. But sitting Senators out-raise challengers by eight to one. This contrast in finances probably accounts for the high re-election rate (nearly ninety-two percent) for incumbents. Many of these contributions are from special interest groups. Others say that rather than imposing congressional term limits there should be legislation that requires a legislator to recuse themselves from voting on any legislation that deals with a major contributor. By doing so, special interest contributions would evaporate.

Voters appear to agree with DeMint as a poll related that eighty-two percent want congressional term limits. DeMint said, "people deserve congressmen who fight to give them a voice rather than fight for their personal power and success. If the people want new policies and real reform, it’s not enough to change the congressmen -- we must change Congress itself", He said.

Candidate Puts Wallet Behind Term Limits Pledge

GOP USA

In an age where politicians head to Washington as "citizen legislators" only to become transformed into career Beltway insiders, one candidate is putting his money where his mouth is regarding term limits.

Following the 1994 elections, congressional Republicans held true to their promise in the Contract with America to bring term limits up for a vote and many pledged to follow their own, self-imposed term limits. Some kept their pledges, others did not. But in North Carolina, congressional candidate Will Breazeale has made a $250,000 promise to the voters. In an age where so many people are frustrated with Washington politicians, maybe this is a move that could catch on.

As noted in a report on Carolina Journal Online, Breazeale "became the first candidate in the nation to take a bonded term limits pledge, agreeing to donate $250,000 of his own assets to a private charity if, after being elected, he doesn't limit himself to three terms in office."

"I see [bonded term limits] bringing about the largest power shift in this country since we became a country," Breazeale in a telephone interview shortly after the press conference. "This will be the standard one day. If you don't put up personal net worth, then you will not be elected."

Breazeale partnered with the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits, a national nonpartisan group, to sign the pledge. Alliance president and board chairman John Skvarla told Carolina Journal that bonded term limits are about accountability.

According to the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits web site, the organization "seeks to explore and develop a process under which candidates for public office can assure constituents that they will work diligently in the public interest instead of building long careers rife with self-interest."

This country does not need a Constitutional Amendment or a Federal Law to bring fresh ideas to Washington; we need dedicated citizens who will travel to Congress with a real commitment to return home after a finite time in office. Our nation needs to return to the citizen legislatures expected by our Founders and retire the career politicians and their patrician lifestyles.

As it stands now, only the president of the United States is constitutionally term-limited. Efforts by states to set term limits for federal office holders (representatives and senators) have run into a brick wall. The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that "only the U.S. Constitution could impose restrictions on congressional hopefuls." WiseGeek.com notes that following the 1994 elections, Republicans "brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor. It limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. Because the Republicans held 230 seats in the House, they were able to get a simple majority. However, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, or 290 votes, and the votes to restrict term limits in Congress fell short of that number."

For me, the best way to ensure term limits is to have an educated electorate. If a candidate becomes corrupt or loses touch with his or her constituents, the voters in that state or district can and should vote for someone else. However, this seldom occurs. Incumbency is powerful. Once elected, an officer holder has a much larger pool of resources to tap. In additions, voters are often lazy! They don't take time to research, and they often don't understand the issues. Thus, the person in power stays in power.

When voters don't take the time to learn about the candidates, they will fall for anything. Charm, wit, or persona trump knowledge, experience, and political philosophy. Just look at these voters from the last election:

Case in point for an educated electorate!

So, outside of educated voters... voters who will look through the media filter, we also need to return to the concept of citizen legislators. We need office holders who care more about the people they represent than the office they hold. Is term limits the key? Is this the time to rally the country to support an amendment to the Constitution? Or perhaps, is it time to have candidates put their money where their mouth is and pledge to limit their own terms?

North Carolina candidate for Congress Will Breazeale may be tapping into the pulse of America at just the right time. Accountability and responsibility are timeless qualities. It would be nice if they were associated more often with our elected officials. Time for term limits? What do you think?

Why We Need Term Limits in Congress

NetRight Naion

Last week, we broke a story about Senator Jim DeMint introducing a Constitutional Amendment that would create Term Limits for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Senator DeMint followed up today with a blog post explaining why we need this amendment. Please read and spread to your friends.

From U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):

The people of South Carolina have given me the privilege of representing them in Congress for more than 10 years now, and over that period I’ve learned a great deal about how things work in Washington. One of the more unfortunate things I’ve come to realize is that Congress has the power to corrupt even those with the most honorable intentions. Too often, I‘ve seen good, honest citizen legislators come to Washington only to realize that in Congress, you either conform to the system or find yourself on the outside looking in. As a result, the American people are left with more “career politicians” who go along to get along in Congress, and end up beholden to special interests, lobbyists, and big government policies.

Though there is no simple solution to this trend, there is a clear place to start: term limits. With term limits, we can put an end to the “if you can’t beat them, join them” approach to legislating, and begin enacting responsible legislation that is in the best interest of our nation. As a result, I will soon be introducing a constitutional amendment limiting current and future members of Congress to serving three terms (six years) in the House and two terms (12 years) in the Senate.

Let’s face it, Washington has become far more powerful than any one person or party. If we want to change the policies, we must first change the process. By imposing term limits, we can ensure frequent turnover which allows for new ideas and fresh perspectives in Congress. Additionally, term limits will keep politicians in-tune with their constituents and less focused on pleasing those who promise to help get them re-elected.

While term limits are certainly a step in the right direction, they are not enough. I sincerely hope my amendment will be ratified, and then be followed by other structural reforms that make our public institutions more transparent and accountable. The American people deserve congressmen who fight to give them a voice rather than fight for their personal power and success. If the people want new policies and real reform, it’s not enough to change the congressmen -- we must change Congress itself.

Knowing when to leave in Latin America

L.A Times

As Latin America's military dictatorships fell one by one in the late 20th century, incipient democracies across the region sought to stamp out caudillo caudillo culture with constitutions that limited their newly elected leaders to one term in office. No more strongmen ruling in perpetuity. So powerful was the no-reelection sentiment that the Honduran Constitution even included a clause saying that its single, four-year presidential term limit could not be amended in the future.

But as democracies took root and civilian governments tried to implement ambitious economic and political reforms, they began to feel constrained by term limits. Soon,elected leaders from right to left sought to extend their mandates. Driven by ego and arrogance as well as ideology, some pursued the changes legitimately through the legislature. At least that was the case when the leaders of Peru, Argentina and Brazil sought second terms in the 1990s.

Problems arose, however, when Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori and Argentine President Carlos Menem still weren't satisfied and, despite charges of corruption, sought third terms. Other leaders went even further, using and abusing the tools of democracy to eliminate term limits altogether. That would include Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who lost one referendum to extend his term before winning passage of a second in February, and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, whose allies on the Supreme Court lifted a ban on reelection last week, raising fears that Nicaragua might return to the kind of entrenched power that Ortega took up arms to defeat in 1979.

Just how long is too long for a president to serve? It's up to each nation to decide for itself, of course, and the answers vary widely across Latin America. Mexico, which fought a bloody revolution to end the 35-year dictatorship of President Porfirio Diaz, has since limited its leader to a single six-year term. El Salvador has a five-year term without reelection; Chile has one four-year term. Like Brazil and Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador changed their constitutions to allow for two four-year terms. Whether four years or eight, all of these options seem reasonable.

But while we don't believe in one-size-fits-all democracy, we do believe in alternating governments. The longer a single party stays in power, the more likely it is to take control of the courts, electoral institutions and the national purse strings, making it harder for opposition parties to compete. This is why the move to lift term limits has been so emotional in the region, leading to everything from a fistfight among legislators in Argentina when Menem sought to change the law in 1993 to a civilian-military coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya over the issue in June.

Even the most popular leaders make mistakes, run out of ideas and curb appeal, and eventually lose fair elections. But those who manage to remain popular longer than usual also should leave office on time, or they risk undermining the political system.

In Colombia, President Alvaro Uribe has been toying with a national referendum that would permit him to seek a third term in 2010, an election he would likely win. Most Colombians believe the conservative leader has successfully fought back against leftist guerrillas and drug traffickers, but 12 years is still too long for the good of democracy. He would do better to leave while he is still a hero to his supporters, and give others a chance.

The same is true for Chavez, Venezuela's leftist leader, who has vowed to stay in office for years to come to complete what he calls his Bolivarian Revolution on behalf of the poor. Besides holding the presidency, he controls the legislature and courts, wields influence over the media and doesn't tolerate dissent.

This is exactly what the political elites in Honduras feared. Zelaya ignored the will of Congress and the Supreme Court in pursuing a referendum on whether Hondurans favored a special assembly to rewrite the country's constitution. He hadn't specifically raised the question of term limits, and likely couldn't have made a change before the end of his own presidency, although many speculated that this was what he intended to do. But Zelaya was close to Chavez, and his opponents took the preemptive step of ousting him, a move deemed illegal by the international community.

Ortega took a new approach to extending his rule in Nicaragua last week. He circumvented the National Assembly, which his Sandinista party does not control, and a national vote, which he might have lost. Instead, he took his petition to lift a ban on consecutive terms to six pro-Sandinista judges who make up the constitutional branch of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court. They agreed with his argument that the prohibition on a second term violated his rights. His critics accuse him of using the levers of government to perpetuate his own power.

A president should lead the government, not use it to his own ends. Latin America suffered long and fought hard to throw off its repressive regimes. Too much power should not be concentrated in the hands of one leader, regardless of ideology, or any leader who overstays his welcome. Latin Americans have wonderful role models in Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, who are sticking to their term limits despite their popularity. The others should look admiringly at this example and follow suit.

DeMint to Offer Term Limits Constitutional Amendment

NetRight Nation

From today's episode of Jim DeMint's podcast (which will be coming out soon):

Hello again. I'm Senator Jim DeMint, and this is Freedomcast for October 22, 2009.

You know, the longer I stay in Washington, the more I have come to realize that the problem in the federal government isn't just the people... it's the process.

The system itself is so much more powerful than either party or interest group, let alone one president or congressional leader.

In Washington, the rules of the game are rigged -- in favor of bigger government, higher taxes, more debt, and the time-honored system of political back-scratching of "go along to get along."

Fifteen years ago, Republicans -- who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.

The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.

The fact is, party doesn’t matter when it comes to reform. If you want to change the policies, you have to change the process.

That’s why in the next few weeks I will introduce a new constitutional amendment to limit members of the House of Representatives to three terms (which is six years), and members of the Senate to two terms (which is twelve years).

As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power.

Since all that power is going to disappear in a few years, anyway, term-limited legislators will be far less likely to make compromises with the system.

Opponents of term limits say that the nation needs wise and seasoned leaders to lead the nation through crises and find consensus on difficult issues.

Well, that’s exactly what we’ve got now… How do you think it’s working out for us?

It wasn’t the “people” who gave us a 12-trillion dollar debt, trillion-dollar deficits, 100-trillion-dollar long term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the health care takeover.

It was those wise and seasoned leaders, who enjoy lives of privilege almost wholly immune from the consequences of their policy failures.

Term limits are not enough, of course. I hope my amendment will eventually be ratified, and then followed by other structural reforms to make our public institutions more transparent and accountable.

But term limits are a good start. Because if we really want reform, we all know it’s not enough just to change the congressmen – we have to change Congress itself.

Thanks for checking in. This is Freedomcast, and I’m Jim DeMint.

Thompson: I'll Hold A Term Limits Referendum, If Elected

New York Daily News

Democrat Bill Thompson, who has made anger over Mayor Bloomberg's push to overturn term limits a hallmark of his campaign, pledged today to put the question of whether the new three-term limit should remain back to the voters if he's elected.

Thompson told the DN's editorial board it "probably makes sense to ask the voters what they think" instead of convening another Charter Revision Commission, as Bloomberg has promised to do (with Ron Lauder's help, of course).

Asked: "So if you win, will you...?" Thompson replied: "Put a referendum back to the voters? Yes."

Thompson said he could "honestly not remember" how he had voted in the last two referenda, but guessed he had "probably voted against imposing term limits."

He said he wasn't certain how New Yorkers would have responded had Bloomberg opted to ask their opinion on changing the law, but speculated the mayor might have been pleasantly surprised had he been willing to go that route.

"I think if the mayor would have put a referendum on the ballot and asked the people of New York City in tough times - that was his argument anyway - 'I’d like to stay on,' I’m not sure, I’m not sure that the people of New York City might have said 'yes'" Thompson said.

"But he didn’t do that. Instead, he went behind their backs and went to the City Council and that’s what was wrong."

Thompson reiterated that he believes two terms is enough for executives - including the public advocate, comptroller and borough presidents - adding: "I haven’t seen many good third terms over the years."

But for a legislative body, he said, three terms might "make more sense" - but only if the public agrees.

Time has come to limit terms in Legislature

Pentgraph.com

Term limits aren't the only way to prevent politicians from gaining too much power, but currently it might be the only idea with a chance of passage.

But even that chance is small - unless outraged voters get behind the idea, with a threat to impose term limits of their own.

The biggest argument against term limits is that voters can apply them any time they want by defeating an elected official's re-election bid.

But that's only partly true. Voters might be able to toss out statewide officials and lawmakers from their own district, but they have no voice in removing lawmakers in other districts who wield inordinate power, such as the House speaker or Senate president, for example.

And a term limit on leadership positions - although ideal - would be unlikely to even reach the floor for a vote, for the very reason it is needed: The House speaker and Senate president generally control what gets voted on.

Term limits are part of a reform package being advocated by state Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, in his race for governor. He sees such limits as a way to curb abuse of power.

Brady is suggesting what amounts to a 10-year term limit: a limit of five terms for state representatives, who serve two-year terms; a limit of three terms for state senators, who serve staggered terms of two or four years.

Brady's reform package also calls for limiting campaign contributions to follow federal election rules, returning to multi-member House districts and taking legislative redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature.

Brady isn't the only one calling for reforms. His proposal is just the latest.

Previous Pantagraph editorials already have called for campaign contributions limits and having redistricting handled in a non-partisan, more independent manner.

The subject of multi-member districts will be addressed in a later editorial.

Fifteen states have legislative term limits in place, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. All except one were enacted in the 1990s. Nine states limit consecutive terms, as Brady's proposal would. Six have limits on total years served in a lifetime.

Brady's proposal also would limit statewide office holders to three terms in the same office.

The argument for ousting statewide office-holders through term limits is not as compelling as the case for legislative term limits. All voters have the opportunity to vote against re-election of a statewide office-holder, which is not the case for individual lawmakers.

Term limits on Illinois lawmakers is an idea whose time has come.

Term limits amendment tops props

Denton Record Chronicle

Early voting starts today in an election to clarify how long Denton City Council members can serve.

The city called a charter amendment election to coincide with the state constitutional election Nov. 3. Residents can vote early through Oct. 30.

Proposition 1, the main local issue, would formalize the city’s longtime practice of not counting past years of service against council members who switch seats or sit out at least a term.

A 21-member citizen committee met for months to craft the proposition after a 2008 lawsuit challenged how the city applied term limits. A state district judge dismissed the lawsuit last October over procedural matters. The case is pending before a Fort Worth appeals court.

The city charter limits the mayor and council members to three consecutive two-year terms, but opinions differ over whether the limit applies per seat or across all seats. City attorneys say past years of service don’t count against council members who run for a different seat, including mayor, or sit out a term.

Proposition 1 would keep the existing limit of three consecutive two-year terms and apply the limit separately to each of the council’s seven seats.

Council members would be limited to 12 consecutive years of council service. The proposal includes no limit on the number of terms someone could serve in a lifetime, meaning a council member could serve up to 12 years by switching seats, sit out a year and then run again.

The proposal was a compromise between charter committee members who wanted no term limits and those who pushed for stronger checks on entrenched power. Denton resident Bill Giese, who led the committee, said the proposal would bring much-needed clarity to the charter.

The 1980 charter amendment that originally set term limits “was subject to some controversy about what it meant,” Giese said. “What we have now is one that would … make clear what the rules are about term limits. Basically, I think that’s the big change.”

So far, no organized public opposition has emerged.

Former council member Mike Cochran, another charter committee member, said he’s heard little feedback on the issue.

“I don’t think it’s high profile at all,” said Cochran, who supports the proposition. “We’re codifying what was pretty much already there, so it’s not like either side is going to be very passionate about essentially doing nothing.”

Denton voters originally approved term limits as part of a series of charter amendments that also expanded the council from five to seven members and created the current mix of four geographical district seats and three at-large positions. The mayor is one of the at-large positions.

Also on the Nov. 3 ballot:

Griffo Wants Gubernatorial Term Limit

WisPolitics.com

WPRI study, “The Case for Term Limits for the Wisconsin Legislature,” finds turnover rates among lowest in nation, analyzes causes and pitfalls of long, comfortable careers

Gov. Jim Doyle recently threw his support behind term limits, arguing that they keep “the political world from becoming stagnant” and allow us “to draw new insights and inspiration from the wellsprings of renewal in each generation.”

A new Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study reveals just how stagnant Wisconsin’s current political world is, and how public policy has suffered.

The study by WPRI Senior Fellow Christian Schneider found that since 1977 the average age of Wisconsin’s state senators and representatives has increased 12 and 13 years respectively. The Assembly has the fifth lowest turnover rate in the country while the Senate has the seventh lowest. Incumbent legislators have lost only 5% of general elections since 1963.

"We’ve seen that for more and more legislators, serving in the statehouse has become more of a career than a public service," said Schneider. "Elected officials fear term limits because they’re afraid the Legislature will lose ‘institutional memory’ – but given our recent history of fiscal mismanagement, that might actually be a boost for our state’s finances," added Schneider.

The study documents how legislators with more than 12 years of service typically draft far fewer bills than their less experienced colleagues, and often avoid sound fiscal planning.

Modern Wisconsin legislators meet far less frequently than their predecessors did thirty or forty years ago, Schneider determined, and as a result have more time to campaign. They also enjoy other advantages of incumbency – including taxpayer-funded mailings and support staff – that help stymie competition and result in careers that now average 17 years in the state Senate, according to the study.

“WPRI polling over the years has shown significant support for term limits among the public,” said George Lightbourn, president of WPRI. “The public seems to understand the value of fresh faces and fresh ideas in the Legislature.”

The study advocates limiting representatives and senators to 12 years in office – something that could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment.

The full version of the study can be found at: http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No6/Vol22No6.pdf

A related video can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085M-27HQes

Griffo Wants Gubernatorial Term Limit

Gouverneur Times

UTICA, NY - Senator Joseph A. Griffo (R,I,C – Rome) continued to press for a reform-minded agenda today by calling for further overhaul of New York ’s political power structure by introducing legislation, Senate bill 6195, that would limit a Governor to one six-year term of office.

“As a strong believer in reforming a system that allows power to be perpetuated, I have become convinced that changing New York’s laws to require the Governor to serve only one term will help the state. Instead of the months, if not years, that are wasted while politicians, pundits and the media focus on nothing more than the next election, whoever is elected Governor will be able to focus on getting the job done the right way from the minute he or she assumes office,” Griffo said. “Instead of being forced to bend with the political winds, a Governor has the freedom to do what he or she promised when campaigning without the influence of support that might be needed for a second term. Also, this ensures a fresh point of view and a changing power structure instead of a system where Executive Branch positions of power begin to feel like entitlements and not positions of responsibility.”

Griffo said that the State of Virginia limits Governors to one four-year term, but that he felt four years was not enough time. “I think a six-year term allows anyone the opportunity to give his or her ideas a try, adapt ideas to changing times, and accomplish what is possible,” Griffo said. “I also believe that if we twin this important reform with my reform proposal to give the people of New York the power of recall, we will have structured government to make it more responsive to the people and to ensure that leadership positions rotate among the many outstanding men and women who are qualified to lead.”

This is not Griffo’s first effort to support term limits. In the Spring of 2007, he introduced legislation that would create term limits for legislative leadership positions. Much of that proposal was incorporated into new State Senate rules that took effect this summer. Key elements of Griffo’s Reform Agenda include:

• S.6093 to call for a state constitutional convention that can fix the structural flaws in the Legislature and in the rules that govern vacancies for elected positions, so that there can be no more appointments to statewide offices and no more backroom dealing.
• S. 6060 to create a mechanism for recall that will remind Albany the people, not the politicians, are in charge.
• S. 6067 that puts a process in place to fill the office of lieutenant governor and allows the Legislature, as the voice of the people, a real voice in the process.
• S. 2929 and S. 2930 to create special elections for statewide offices of comptroller and attorney general when they become vacant.

Term limits tweak may be heading back to ballot

Capitol Weekly

A new proposal to change the state’s legislative term limits law has been submitted to the Attorney General’s office, and could be on the ballot by November 2010.

The initiative is similar to a measure backed by former Speaker Fabian Nuñez and former Senate Leader Don Perata in 2008. That measure was also supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but was ultimately rejected by voters – 53 percent of whom voted against it.

But unlike the 2008 proposal, this measure does not seek to provide extra terms for those already in office. The measure states the intent is to prohibit “any current or former legislator from benefiting in any way from this reform.”

But if the measure passes, it would create a two-tiered system of rules until the new law is fully phased in. The new law would only “apply to those members of the Senate or the Assembly who are first elected to the legislature” after the new law goes into effect. Current members of the Legislature “may only serve the number of terms allowed at the time that member … was last elected to office.”

For example, members who were elected to the Assembly in 2008 would still only be able to serve three two-year Assembly terms, and then be eligible to serve in the Senate for two four-year terms. But if this law passes, a member elected to the Assembly in 2012 would be able to serve six two-year terms in the Assembly.

The state’s term limits law has become a major focus of the debate over how to fix California’s broken governance system. While there is wide support among political experts to tweak the current term limits system – which was adopted by voters in 1990 – the current law also has staunch defenders.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner, who has also endorsed the concept of a part-time Legislature, spent millions to defeat Proposition 93 in 2008. Poizner campaign spokesman Jarrod Agen says the insurance commissioner remains opposed to changes in the term-limits law.

Poizner railed against the new initiative, telling Capitol Weekly, “The problem with the California Legislature is not that we should allow career politicians to stay there longer, which is what this initiative would do, but instead we need to change the kind of person who gets elected to the Legislature in the first place. I support the current term limits law and oppose any changes, as well as supporting a part-time Legislature to get more people with real world experiences in Sacramento.”

U.S. Term Limits president Philip Blumel blasted the term limits proposal in a letter last month addressed to the co-chairs of California Forward. California Forward has endorsed a proposal similar to the one submitted this week, though a spokesman for the group said they were not the ones who submitted this latest measure to the attorney general.

“This is unacceptable to U.S. Term Limits, its California members, and the people of California who have already voted on three separate occasions to maintain strict term limits on office holders,” Blumel wrote.

“Your proposal is particularly unfortunate because it is framed in such a way as to confuse the citizens of the state into believing that it reduces, rather than lengthens, a politician’s time in office … The amount of damage an entrenched politician can do in that length of time is immeasurable. Just look at the damage they are already doing in just six to eight years, having already bankrupted a once-solvent state.”

But proponents of the term limits change say it is the limits on terms that have helped drive the state into a deep fiscal morass, with inexperienced politicians now focused on their next election rather than effective governance.

“It’s clear we need term limits reform. We need it. Period,” said California Forward co-chairman Bob Hertzberg. “And voters are increasingly seeing the need for it. At California Forward we’re always looking for new partners to join us in bringing this type of reform before the voters. So we see this initiative filed as a step in the right direction.”

The term-limits change is just one of the government reform measures that may be headed to the ballot next year. Gov. Schwarzenegger has endorsed the concept of an open primary, which will be on the June ballot. Signatures are already being collected on a part-time legislature initiative. And labor groups are contemplating pushing changes to the legislative vote requirements to eliminate the current two-thirds requirements to pass new taxes and state budgets.

Appomattox Town Council considering term limits

Times Virginian

The Appomattox Town Council is considering the possibility of setting term limits for the Council members and the mayor.

Council member Bryan Baine, who initiated discussion on the topic, said that there are about 2,000 towns that use term limits for Council members.

He said that several citizens approached him about it over the last year.

He said that he was not sure of how many towns in Virginia use term limits.

Council could choose, for example, a two, four year, a eight-year term limit or any other option.

Baine informed the Council that San Antonio had the most restrictive with a 2-year term limit for life.

Town attorney Frank Wright explained to Council that if they were intending to have term limits set to go into effect by 2010, Council would need to take action in order for the matter to be ready to be addressed before the General Assembly.

In order to get it ready for the General Assembly, they would need to get it ready by November.

"You probably would want to start early because it would take a long time to get on a referendum," Wright said.

Baine said that he would like to go with a referendum.

Council member Jennifer Jamerson-Scruggs agreed with the idea of creating term limits.

"I would like to at least pursue it," she said. She said that she want more information gathered on the matter.

Council has not voted to take further action on the issue.

It was unclear why the issue of term limits was introduced.

Lewis McDearmon and Jimmy Mayberry currently are the longest-serving members of Council.

McDearmon has been on Council since 1999 and Mayberry has been serving on Council since 1995.

Term Limits Proposed

Daily News Record

HARRISONBURG - Gene Hart, the Democratic candidate in the 26th House race, said Monday he would make a constitutional amendment on term limits his first piece of legislation if elected.

Hart made the proposal, which would limit the number of consecutive terms lawmakers may serve, during a one-hour face-to-face call-in show with Del. Matt Lohr, R-Broadway, his opponent, on WSVA radio.

Hart is seeking to unseat Lohr, who is running for his third two-year term, in the Nov. 3 election.

Focus Needed

Specifically, Hart wants legislation to limit delegates to three consecutive terms. A delegate would be allowed to seek a fourth term, but only after sitting out at least one two-year term.

Term limits are needed to keep lawmakers focused on service to their constituents, Hart said.

Lohr did not respond to Hart's proposal. But the incumbent has said voters already impose term limits on lawmakers at election time.

Read the Full Story here

Our Views: Term limits needed

The Crimson White

More than two centuries ago, George Washington got it right when he chose to serve two — and only two — terms as president of the United States. The tradition of two remained firmly entrenched in the United States until Franklin Roosevelt won four terms. After Roosevelt’s death in 1945, the United States enacted the 22nd Amendment, limiting our presidents to two terms in the Oval Office.

But the 22nd Amendment does not apply to members of Congress. We need another amendment to rectify that.

In recent years, “culture of corruption” has become a political catchphrase, dominating press conferences and campaign commercials. Democrats have used the phrase to slam Republicans for misdeeds — and there were certainly some — but, historically speaking, Republicans are not the only people with ethics problems. Democrats have had their share of shady dealings over the years, too.

Corruption so often happens when people become too engrained in Washington. They forget who they represent and why they ran for office. While such a phenomenon can happen quickly, it is more likely to occur the longer one sticks around the Potomac River.

Term limits would help to foster an environment of citizen legislators, an early American tradition that is a tradition worth bringing back to the forefront. In an earlier time, individuals would leave their careers in medicine, law, education, or any other discipline to help their countrymen for a few years. And then they would go back to their careers.

Now, it seems as if people run. And run again. And then they run again. And it’s a continuous, vicious cycle. Sometimes, voters have an epiphany and send the politicians packing. But, the incumbency is a powerful tool (the Center for Responsive Politics , a watchdog group, reports that, in every election cycle since 1994, more than 90 percent of representatives have been re-elected), and, historically, voters aren’t big on change.

Yet they complain about the state of Congress. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reveals that Congress enjoys a 22 percent approval rating. This is not atypical, though Congress had higher poll numbers back in January.

If America wants to see fundamental change in the halls of power, it’s time to cleanse the Capitol and bring in fresh leadership more often.

People used to seek office in the spirit of public service. We’d like to see a complete return to that philosophy.

It starts with term limits.

Voters Like Mayor, but Not His Path to 3rd Run

New York Times

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s re-election campaign can generate reams of statistics on how quickly the city repaired potholes in each neighborhood. It can produce memos on climate change and public health, and even translate fliers into Creole.

Just don’t ask about term limits.

Rosemary DeStefano found that out on her doorstep in the Bronx the other day when a Bloomberg volunteer showed up, asking for her vote.

When she complained about how the mayor had the law changed to stay in office, the volunteer recited details of his economic plan. When she persisted, he extolled Mr. Bloomberg’s promise to create 400,000 jobs.

“They missed the whole point,” she said.

With five weeks remaining until Election Day, little seems uncertain in the contest between the colossally advantaged incumbent, Mr. Bloomberg, and his lesser-known rival, William C. Thompson Jr.

But interviews with both campaigns and dozens of voters reveal that anger over a single issue still simmers, seemingly immune to a flood of television commercials and glossy brochures. That bedevils Bloomberg advisers and gives hope to his underfunded challenger.

Disenchantment over the change in the law helped topple four veteran City Council members this fall, the greatest repudiation of incumbents in a generation, and has catapulted two local lawmakers who opposed the measure into citywide office.

“The Bloomberg campaign can’t convince voters to not be upset about this. It won’t work,” said John H. Mollenkopf, a professor of political science at City University who has informally advised the Bloomberg campaign.

“If you ask New Yorkers what they did not like over the last eight years,” he added, “term limits is the major negative.”

Mr. Thompson is building his entire campaign around the topic, adopting the slogan “Eight Is Enough,” accusing the mayor of breaking his word and preparing commercials that portray him as a power-hungry mogul who plays by his own rules.

Mr. Thompson’s campaign aides have told undecided voters to express their outrage over term limits by supporting him, whether they like him or not. And Mr. Thompson will make it a major line of attack during two debates and turn it into a rallying cry in the days leading up to Election Day, the anniversary of the term limits change, which Mr. Bloomberg signed into law on Nov. 3, 2008. “It will be a big theme,” said Eduardo Castell, Mr. Thompson’s campaign manager.

The mayor’s political advisers privately acknowledge the public anger, but since they cannot reverse Mr. Bloomberg’s actions, they are looking for ways to deflect attention from it.

They have created a new round of commercials that play up Mr. Bloomberg’s middle-class roots, to soften his image as an imperious billionaire who defied the will of the voters.

They are leveling frequent attacks at Mr. Thompson’s record, as president of the Board of Education and comptroller, to send the message that, even if voters are still resentful about term limits, they would be foolhardy to choose an untested leader.

If voters insist on talking about term limits, volunteers are instructed to tell them the mayor “is not guaranteed” a third term and has given them “more choice” by changing the rules.

“Bill Thompson wants to make this election about one issue,” said the mayor’s campaign manager, Bradley Tusk. “And given his track record that’s understandable. But the performance of the mayor has an enormous impact on people’s lives, and because of that, voters choose their mayor based on very real tangible issues.”

No one is predicting that resentment over term limits will, by itself, be enough to cost the mayor the election. But in interviews, political analysts and pollsters said that unease over the issue helps account for a stubborn anomaly in New Yorkers’ feelings about the mayor. Polls consistently show that a large majority (roughly 70 percent) approve of his performance, but that a significantly smaller number (50 percent) plan to vote for him in November.

The 50 percent figure has not budged in months, even though the Bloomberg campaign has spent about $65 million to promote the mayor’s record. “Term limits has a lot to do with that,” said Geoff Garin, Mr. Thompson’s pollster. “It has put a ceiling on good will toward the mayor.”

Marilyn Arthold, 64, who lives in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, said she liked the mayor but was considering voting against him because of how he changed term limits.

“He did it the wrong way,” she said.

Her neighbor, Anna May, who would give only her first and middle name, agreed: “I didn’t go to college, but I know right from wrong. This was wrong.” She said she would vote for Mr. Thompson.

Those involved in the mayor’s campaign said the issue has unexpected staying power, a year after City Hall introduced the legislation allowing officials to serve three consecutive terms, not two.

“It comes up a lot with voters,” said one campaign staff member. In the fall of 2008, when Mr. Bloomberg and his aides fought to change the rule, they made two predictions: that voters would be distracted by the presidential election, and that any anger over the move would recede by Election Day 2009.

They may have been overoptimistic, pollsters and analysts said.

“The anger in the electorate remains an inconvenient truth for the Bloomberg campaign,” said Bruce N. Gyory, a political consultant.

New York voters approved a referendum limiting council members and officials elected citywide to two four-year terms in 1993, and then ratified that vote in a second referendum in 1996. Mr. Bloomberg, in overturning the law, rewrote it through legislation that was approved by the City Council; critics and good-government groups said any change should have gone before the voters.

Mr. Bloomberg was previously outspoken in his opposition to changing term limits, saying any effort to do so would be a “disgrace.”

Just how much it will hurt him on Election Day remains an open question, however. Many voters who intensely opposed the change said they planned to vote for him, citing his skills as a manager and a weak opponent.

“If it were anyone else, I would probably be against him,” said Carlo Dioguardi, who lives in Battery Park City and voted in favor of term limits. “I don’t think anyone else can do the job he’s done.”

As for those who are less forgiving?

The campaign’s strategy of changing the topic occasionally backfires. A few days after Ms. DeStefano’s confrontation with a Bloomberg campaign volunteer in the Bronx, a handwritten letter from a campaign volunteer arrived, ticking off the mayor’s plans to improve the economy in the borough. Ms. DeStefano, a 75-year-old Republican, tore it up.

“I didn’t ask about jobs,” she said. “I asked about term limits.”