Trending
Michigan voters adopted term limits in 1992 to put firm caps on the amount of time elected officials could stay in state offices. It's been a disaster.
The failure of term limits is one reason we take a very cautious view of making law through ballot proposals. Once enshrined in the Constitution, the laws are all but impossible to change to address unintended consequences.
We are happy to make an exception to that position this year to support Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 general election ballot.
Prop 1 wouldn't get rid of term limits, as we have long advocated. Rather, it would reform the 1992 constitutional amendment to make it work better for Michigan, with the added benefit of finally bringing transparency to state government.
The proposal actually shortens the total number of years a lawmaker could serve in Lansing, to 12 years from 14, which should please those who believe term limits are needed to guard against career politicians. But those years could be spent more effectively.
Instead of restricting service in the Legislature to three, two-year terms in the House and two, four-year terms in the Senate, the proposal would allow a lawmaker to serve the full 12 years in a single chamber.
That addresses one of the most serious issues with the current limits. Lawmakers aren't around long enough to develop the expertise and relationships they need to become competent in their work. Also, they are constantly looking toward their next job. This political pogo-sticking creates unnecessary intra-party rivalries and lawmakers more interested in pleasing a possible future employer than serving their constituents.
And it should end the practice of placing lawmakers with just a couple of years' experience into leadership positions. That should diminish the power of lobbyists and legislative staffers.
It's a smart fix that doesn't threaten the intent of the 1992 amendment.
Just as important is the transparency piece of the proposal. It would require all lawmakers, along with the governor and other officials elected statewide, to describe the nature and value of their assets and liabilities.
Those officials would also be required to reveal positions held outside their elected office; any arrangements they've made for future employment; the benefits they continue to receive from private employers, and payments and gifts received from registered lobbyists.
In short, citizens would be fully informed of the outside interests that may be influencing their lawmakers.
Michigan has one of the strictest term limit law's in the nation, and the most lenient rules governing ethics and transparency.
That's a terrible combination.
We have tried this term limit experiment for 20 years. It hasn't worked. So it's appropriate to stop now and use what we've learned to make term limits work better. Again, this is not a term limits repeal. It's a much-needed repair that will serve citizens without rewarding politicians with more time on the public payroll.
At the same time, it will address the Wild West ethical environment in Lansing. Lawmakers have proved they won't act to hold themselves to basic standards of ethical behavior and accountability. Voters must do the work themselves.
This measure, placed directly on the ballot by the Legislature, enjoys bipartisan support and is backed by business, civic and labor groups. It will go a long way toward making the state Legislature more productive and professional, as well as more responsive to their constituents.
We strongly urge a Yes vote on Proposal 1.
-- Detroit News