Press "Enter" to skip to content

HJR 1002 Loosens Term Limits, HJR 1003 Tightens; History Shows Neither Needed

Last updated on 2014.02.10

Pretty near everybody in the Legislature wants us to vote on term limits this year. But we have two dueling resolutions that take Legislative term limits in different directions.

House Joint Resolution 1002 would loosen South Dakota's term limits to allow legislators to serve for up to twelve consecutive years in one chamber.

House Joint Resolution 1003 would tighten our term limits, striking "consecutive" from Article 3, Section 6 of the South Dakota constitution and setting a lifetime limit of four terms in the House and four terms in the Senate.

Neither constitutional amendment would count partial terms from gubernatorial appointment.

HJR 1002 loosens term limits to the point where one might argue they become meaningless. 24 years is an awfully long time to serve in Pierre; in 125 years, only a dozen men (yup, all men) have served more than 24 years in the Legislature. Six men hold the record at 30 years of Legislative service. 3,356 South Dakotans have held the title of Legislator since statehood, meaning that the historical odds of HJR 1002's limiting any legislator's term are 1 in 280.

HJR 1003 would have affected only 1 in 53 of South Dakota's legislators so far. Among the 63 legislators who have served more than 16 years is Frank Kloucek, who may be thinking of adding to his 22 years in Pierre. Interestingly, three of HJR 1003's sponsors are the three legislators from District 19 whom Kloucek might challenge.

Flip the odds for passage: HJR 1002 has already passed the House 54 to 16. HJR 1003 faces House State Affairs early Monday,* when the GOP leadership will likely deal prime sponsor Rep. Stace Nelson another deferral to the 41st day.

Fewer than 3% of South Dakota's legislators have held office beyond the term limits of HJR 1003. If keeping legislators around for longer than eight terms or even twelve terms is a problem, South Dakota voters don't appear to need artificial legal strictures to tell them when to change horses. I can tolerate HJR 1002, only because it is a step toward doing away with term limits altogether and respecting the democratic will and wisdom of the voters.

Punctuational and Pronomial Trivia: Article 3, Section 6 opens with these two clauses:

The terms of office of the members of the Legislature shall be two years; they shall receive for their services the salary fixed by law under the provisions of § 2 of article XXI of this Constitution....

HJR 1002 does not touch this passage. HJR 1003 takes time to rewrite these clauses:

The terms of office of the members of the Legislature shall be two years; they. Legislators shall receive for their services the salary fixed by law under the provisions of § 2 of article XXI of this Constitution....

I can think of no legal or historical reason for the authors of this bill to make those changes; they simply must take umbrage at semicolons and pronouns with faintly uncertain antecedents.

*Update 2014.02.10 09:55 CST: House State Affairs deferred HJR 1003 this morning to Wednesday, February 12.

14 Comments

  1. Philip Blumel 2014.02.10

    "I can tolerate HJR 1002, only because it is a step toward doing away with term limits altogether and respecting the democratic will and wisdom of the voters."

    Is this sarcastic? Eight-year term limits were initiated by voters, approved by voters in 1992 and reaffirmed in 2006 and again in 2008 with *growing* precentages. How does scrapping them respect the will and wisdom of voters?

  2. Troy 2014.02.10

    Phil,

    With these resolutions, the people will be asked to revisit the question as it requires their approval at the ballot box. It is wholly possible that the people may discern term limits hasn't served the purpose they desired.

    Cory,

    I'm with you on this. Let's end term limits. Conservative/Wacky Liberal coalition. :)

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.10

    No sarcasm, Philip. On this issue, the voters are wrong. I want to convince them to change their minds and take back their direct power instead of surrendering their power to arbitrary limits written into law. (See? I'm still a democrat!)

    Even Troy's agreement with me won't deter me from opposing term limits.

  4. Jana 2014.02.10

    The definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

  5. Donald Pay 2014.02.10

    I've always supported term limits. When you have a lot of 12-30 year legislators you get have a lot of arrogant folks who ain't listening to nobody because they don't have to.

    It's gets even worse when you look at who was in leadership positions. Prior to term limits you had a completely ossified situation in legislative leadership. The same people decade after decade chairing committees resulted in a total lobbyist/Governor capture of the legislative process. I'm not saying it's that much better now with one party rule, but stirring the pot of Republicans from time to time at least gives you a chance to get someone sane elected.

  6. Philip Blumel 2014.02.10

    South Dakota is in the best fiscal shape of just about any state in the country. There is no crisis of inexperience here. And, with term limits SD gets more competitive elections, more opportunities for citizens to run (and win) and better overall representation. Turnover is frustrating for legislators who have to leave and for the special interests that must establish relationships with them. But the people benefit.

  7. Roger Elgersma 2014.02.10

    In high school gov class a legislator told us that when you have one member of a committee that has been there thirty years, then when someone from a corporation comes and asks for something and does not get it and then comes back twenty years later with the opposite arguement for another break, then the old guy says, but you said the opposite before, what is it that you really think and what is it that you really want. The long term consistency of perspective is worthwhile. I also like new blood. Neither law fits both my interests. So I might have to trust the thought of the common person at the voting booth. I do not have a real problem with that.

  8. grudznick 2014.02.10

    Ms. Jana, I think it was that young Dr. Bos woman who said that from her medical experience.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.02.11

    Donald, did we get a lot of long-time legislators prior to term limits? The historical listing seems to show the vast majority of legislators, well over 90%, didn't hang around longer than the current term limits.

    Philip, can you show me the link between being in great fiscal shape and having term limits? I can see the negative—our term limits apparently haven't hindered the ability to balance the budget—but balancing the budget has happened in South Dakota every year, with or without term limits.

  10. mike from iowa 2014.02.12

    Phillip Blumel-South Dakota is in the best fiscal shape of just about any state in the country. At what cost? Who are the sacrificial lambs. Like most other red-run states,education and the poor are some of the first and hardest hit sacrificees to fiscal restraint. If managing finances was all there was for a state to do,then why not skip government and turn the tax rolls over to the tender mercies of mercenary financial experts?

  11. Philip Blumel 2014.02.13

    "Philip, can you show me the link between being in great fiscal shape and having term limits?" Not directly. But several benefits (from the point of view of citizens) CAN be demonstrated: Regular rotation in office, more opportunities for citizens to run and hold office, more former officeholders in the polity, less special interest dollars dedicated per race, more competitive open seat elections, etc. Term limit supporters believe these encourage more transparent, flexible and representative government and this should lead to better governing. As you mention, the opposite case -- that term limits lead to shoddy governing and poor results -- can be disproved by the fact the states with 8-year term limits crowd the top rankings of best-run states. According to 2013 ranking of states by fiscal condition by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 5 of the top 10 states (SD is #2) have 8-year limits.

  12. Philip Blumel 2014.02.13

    "Phil, with these resolutions, the people will be asked to revisit the question as it requires their approval at the ballot box. It is wholly possible that the people may discern term limits hasn't served the purpose they desired." I would concede this if a lot of time has passed and/or there was some reason to believe that the voters have shifted on the issue. If not, it is an affront to make concerned citizens defend their popular law again and again and again. Remember this was voter-initiated and -approved three times, the last time in 2008 with over 75% of the vote.

  13. Philip Blumel 2014.02.13

    "Phillip Blumel-South Dakota is in the best fiscal shape of just about any state in the country. At what cost? Who are the sacrificial lambs. Like most other red-run states,education and the poor are some of the first and hardest hit sacrificees to fiscal restraint." I don't think fiscal soundness requires any particular set of policy preferences, only that revenues match expenditures, you don't borrow too much, transparent budgets are passed and the bills paid on time, etc. It does not help your case to proclaim that progressive goals are incompatible with fiscal responsibility.

  14. mike from iowa 2014.02.13

    Where does Wisconsin stand. Walker gave the koch bros huge tax breaks,declared a fiscal emergency that necessitated trying to destroy unions(for the koch bros),borrowed billions of bucks and pushed Wisconsin's debt about thirty years into the future,then claimed he balanced the budget. Cheap theatrics and lies all the way through. Unfortunately for Wisconsin,gerry mandering almost assures wingnut control,just like Texas and Alaska and maybe even SoDak.

Comments are closed.