By Gordon Garnos
AT ISSUE: South Dakota's Constitution was changed in 1992 that term limited congressional, legislative and constitutional office holders. This was immediately challenged since a state could not put term limits on congressional office holders. Thus, this amendment was changed the next year to include just legislators and our constitutional officers. Amendment J would remove legislators from being term limited, but the term limits on our constitutional officers would remain in effect. The resolution to amend was approved by the last session of South Dakota Legislature.
THE IDEA TO TERM limit legislators, as well as our constitutional officers and congressional office holders was done through a petition by the voters of South Dakota. This was first passed by more than a 64 percent majority at the ballot box in 1992, a healthy margin, and amended the following year removing congressional office holders. The term limit law said no legislator could serve in either the state House of Representatives or the state Senate for more than four consecutive terms, or a total of eight consecutive years.
Now, after a 16-year trial period, our legislators want to do away with their term limits, but leave our constitutional officers on the term limit list. Our state's governor was term limited some time before this to two four-year terms.
According to the pamphlet put together by the office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson, a Republican from Rapid City, Senator Bill Napoli, wrote for the proponents to do away with legislative term limits and the opponents' side was prepared by non-legislators Rick Skorupski of Frankfort and Jeff Partridge of rural Rapid City.
SENATOR NAPOLI CLAIMED term limits have destroyed our freedom to decide who we want to represent us. He also argues that because of term limits on legislators "in many instances the legislative sessions over the past 16 years have neither the institutional memory nor experience to deal with complex issues that have drastic consequences to the citizens of South Dakota."
He also complains that he has seen up to 30 percent turnover in the Legislature as a result of the term limit law.
THE PROPONENT WRITERS say, "No way to 'J'." Prior to term limits, "the system let a handful of powerful politicians cut deals with special interest lobbyists in return for campaign cash they could use to get reelected, decade after decade..."
They also claim the attempt to do away with term limits "is a blatant power grab--trying to remove term limits on themselves..."
In other words, Constitutional Amendment J is very much self-serving for our legislators.
I have to agree with the proponents for keeping term limits where they are for various reasons.
When the proposal of term limits first surfaced I editorially endorsed it. After reporting on several legislative sessions there was no question about the legislative leadership--long time leadership.
TWO OF THESE LEADERS both had very direct relationships, with industries controlled by the state. The very laws they passed were watered down versions of more restrictive laws needed. Sadly, they had the backing to do the watering down. As far as I was concerned, session after session, the smell of their special interests got worse.
From the first, the cry of losing "historical, or institutional, memory and experience" was heard across South Dakota. But, instead of losing this memory and experience, South Dakota gained new and fresh thinking in Pierre and more competitive elections. It also gave more South Dakotans a better advantage to serve. And instead of destroying the freedom of who we want to represent us in Pierre, the door is opened further to elect those with these fresh ideas and thinking.
Instead of seeing up to 30 percent turnover because of term limits the mandatory revolving door continues to bring in new legislators who are not branded with the old ways Pierre did things.
Perhaps the most important reason why South Dakotans should be opposing Constitutional Amendment J is it being proposed by the very people eliminating the term limits who would benefit the most to keeping them in office.
THERE'S NO QUESTION that term limits have caused the loss of some outstanding legislators but, at the same time, it has brought many quality people to Pierre.
If institutional memory and experience is so important a suggestion being passed around is to defeat "J" this year. Then have the voters of South Dakota, initiate a new proposal extending the term limits from eight years in one house or the other to 12 years, six two-year terms instead of four. Yes, I like that idea. That really has some potential. A vote "No" this time will leave our Constitution as it is....
Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.
Featured Article
Monday, October 06, 2008
Constitutional Amendment J would eliminate term limits, but now is not the time
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment