I can see why term limits would irk the lobbyists. Their candidates would be a new crop to buy each session, instead of the " Bought and Paid Group" of old. Once bought always bought was the motto and now with term limits a new expensive game plan will have to be reworked. If,and a big if, were that voters weren't lazy and would read up on their elected officials..just maybe we would not need term limits. Nah, that ain't never gonna happen..viva Term Limits.

The Medford Mail Tribune also has an excellent editorial on the subject here: http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2006/0725/edit/edit.htm

Term limits don't "irk the lobbyists," KISS; just the opposite. The lobbyists (and state bureaucrats) become the keepers of institutional knowledge at the capitol. With term limits, the seasoned legislative veterans are those with two terms under their belts, while many of the lobbyists have been around for decades. The above quotes from the CFM Insider are dead-on accurate in their analysis of the failure of term limits.

Term Limits: Stop me before I vote again!

Here, here, KISS! You know, since voters can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, we should really just let the Politburo decide the candidates and run the elections. I for one feel great relief when others just tell me who I can and can't vote for. It takes away the stress in my life brought on by self-determination.

I find it ironic that people who make their living off of initiatives (somehow trusting the voters to be smart enough to figure out complex policy decisions) are often the same people who want to limit the voters' ability to choose who can represent them (by passing term limits).

What? What's that you say? Incumbents can out-raise challengers? Money confuses voters? Oh, and initiative wars aren't about money buying confusing messages to voters?

If the problem is corrupt powerful politicians, vote them out of office. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (and the salami).

Term limits limit voter choice. By definition.

I'm not sure how much of a difference, if any, state term limits will make until term limits are in place for all US legislators and not just Oregon's US legislators. What good does local term limits do if the feds are determined to undermine us?

And is there a compelling reason BlueOregon uses TypePad instead of something a little less bogus like slashcode, which offers greater ease of use for users and threaded replies?

Try to keep up, Baloo. Oregon's US legislators are not term-limited, nor does the current initiative propose such a thing.

Why not term limits for voters? If we don't want legislators with experience and institutional memory, why allow them for voters?

Nothing like a fresh set of eyes to analyze the ballot and make decisions about who to put in office.

In fact, why not demand it for every profession/position? Doctors? 10 years of practice and you're out. Dentists? 8 years. Lawyers? 2 years.

Married to that special someone? (yes, you're straight). You've got 5 years to enjoy your matrimony and then it's time to move on.

I really don't see the benefit of depriving my district of an honest, capable, hard-working representative because she's been around three terms. Term limits are idiotic; they bar us from keeping good people in office. The legislature needs reform, but that reform needs to occur at the level of House and Senate rules. You want to get rid of your crappy legislator, vote him out. But let us keep our good one.

Whatever case there might be for terms limits vanishes completely in Oregon, with an underpaid, part-time citizen legislature meeting six to eight months out of every two years. Amateur legislators with no experience in the political process, no respect for the institution, and a lot of ignorant ideology can be tempered by seasoned veterans who have grown past all of that. With terms limits, we get permanent amateur hour. We replace a third or more of the legislature every year.

This also is an invitation to irresponsible budgeting. Why not drain the reserves, pass an irresponsible tax cut, or a bill that will mandate a crapload of spending three years down the line? You won't be around to deal with it.

And hey ... that third term, when you can't run again anyway? Who the hell cares what the voters think? You don't answer to them anymore ... unless, of course, you're using your final term to campaign for your next office on the taxpayers' nickel. (Now, as for the interests of that company that could be really, really good to you when you leave office...)

Personally, the only term limit I want to see is a one-consecutive-term limit on committee chairs in both Houses.

I'm with Paul on this one.

We held a town hall meeting a few months back, and the issue of term limits came up, and there was some good banter back and forth along the lines of "sure, you are opposed now that you're elected." But I've got to say that I think the limits are absurd. There is such a huge learning curve to this job--I defy anyone to get a handle on the Department of Human Services budget in two years or even four--that to shut someone off from serving in the House after three terms simply cements a lack of quality into place.

After just about two years in this job, I am finally feeling confident of who to call on what issue, and what pressure to put on where to help a constituent or get traction on an issue. I have no idea of how long I can last as a legislator, given what the impact is on my family, but I know I will be a better representative in 2007 than I was in 2005, and better than that in 2009, etc.

Paul's approach to a healthy turnover is one I back 100%.

Peter, Paul, Jesse O, djk all have the right idea. TERM LIMITS HAS BEEN TRIED! There are people who consider it an abject failure--what was promised by the sponsors was not what happened.

The most glaring example would be Speaker Simmons getting that lobbying job before his term as Speaker was over. Just how many terms had Mark Simmons served in the legislature? Under term limits, was he out the door of the legislature after the session he was Speaker and was that why he was looking for a lobbyist job?

Closer to home, the district just to the south of us (now 19, previously 30) was a mainly rural district. For years there was a wonderful state rep. in tune with his rural constituents. Larry Wells was a very strong leader in water quality (fishing would be ruined if water was polluted) and was one of those rare legislators who met with ordinary constituents incl. those not yet old enough to vote. I took some high school students to his office one time and we were treated as very important visitors. Not only that, but his office was the model of polite, friendly treatment of all who came to visit.

Term limits ended Wells' political career. Was he replaced by someone equally concerned about the residents of the district, someone equally friendly and honest? No, he was replaced by Dan Doyle (who left office and was convicted of campaign violations and jailed--is he out on probation now?).

If the term limits advocates can cite an example in reverse (cocky legislator replaced by someone who really cared about the ordinary citizens in the district), let them post that example here. I am not sure that example exists.

If the entire term limits campaign (from idea to money to all the other parts of the campaign) had come from Oregon with no help from any other state, that would be one thing. But my guess is that the folks in US TERM LIMITS never heard of Dan Doyle. But they want us to vote for their ballot measure because they know what is best for people in a state where they don't live?

Married to that special someone? (yes, you're straight). You've got 5 years to enjoy your matrimony and then it's time to move on.

Oooo, now there's an idea. How many signatures do we need?

The appealing thing to me about the whole term limits argument, though I don't know whether I'll vote for it or not, is that if you have citizen-states(wo)men, rather than "workhorse politicians", you would hope that people become drawn to serve as a service to their state and go home, like the original intention of our government was.

We have too many, IMO, people coming to Salem to become a fixture, whether in the legislature or down the road as a lobbyist. You all probably don't recognize the name Mark Sanford, but he was a South Carolina rep. He said he'd serve four two-year terms and get out. He parlayed that into a US House seat, said he'd serve two terms and get out. He did. He's now the governor.

Now, you may look at that and say, he's just a politician trading up, and he was. But he kept his word (shocker), and left each of the posts when he said he would. The citizens rewarded him. He's now been an elected official for over 14 years. I don't know where he's going after the guv-ship, but I imagine he'll be able to do whatever he wanted. Point is, he's the kind of person we need more of. I don't know if term limits are the way to get there, but if the notion that once you get to Salem, it can be a forever-type appointment gets turned into, I'm going to Salem to serve my district for a few terms and get back to real life, I think that's a good thing. Unfortunately, I can't see that attitude coming about any way other than term limits, but I'd be open to it if there were.

Term limits impose a limit on choice, but our current system fosters the wrong spirit in my opinion. The notion that I don't want to get rid of my good legislator is the wrong mindset, in my opinion. It just sets us up for more turf wars, more partisanship, and more gridlock.

Politicians who are in it for the wrong reason will use their power in whatever ways are made available to them. Those in it for the right reasons are more likely to serve their districts and move on anyway, sometimes back to private life, sometimes up to higher office. Propose a better solution to our current problem, and I'll gather sigs for you. Otherwise, I think I'm prolly voting yes.

In applying term limits to the private sector, there aren't a lot of successful companies out there who'd hire a C.E.O. with only a couple years experience. But those will be the only ones around to lead in the legislature, let alone serve, if this initiative passes.

What we really need is an initiative to raise the number of signatures needed to qualify these endless initiatives. Say, 15% of all registered voters based on the last census? Now THAT's something I'd sign in a heartbeat. That would put our representative democracy back in the legislature where give-and-take trading and deliberation can have a chance to look at the larger implications of the sound-bites we're asked to vote on each election.

(Making it harder to qualify would even make Sizemore & friends' services worth more. Are you listening, Bill?)

To blueoregon.com readers:

Thank you for creating and participating in this thread. With support for legislative term limits at or near 70%, there can be no doubt than MANY progressives support the idea. As spokesperson for the initiative / ballot measure (if certified), I accept the broad diversity of support for term limits. We recognize that different people will support term limits for different reasons, and have no quarrel with that. And of course, while we are enthusiastic about legislative term limits, we do not claim it to be a "panacea" - nothing is.

Complete information and history of legislative term limits in Oregon is available for review at: www.oregontermlimits.org. This website has been up and current since ... 1995 ... and now includes a blog. We welcome a discussion based on the facts and history of term limits, especially in Oregon.

The "negatives" are already emitting from TL opponents in full force. As usual, newspapers have begun to editorialize "NO" - even before the initiative is certified and in all cases (so far) without even consulting us. If/when they do, they will find that proponents have a positive vision of good government. However, negative-campaigners typically try to define the "YES" side before proponents even have a chance to put their view forward. So this is expected, and we are prepared to answer.

The founders understood the important and delicate relationship between government power and individual freedom/liberty. Rotation in office was a voluntary fixture of American democracy before the "Americans for Unlimited Government" movement took over. In Oregon, constitutional term limits for Governor, for example, date to our state's founding.

Perhaps Benajmin Franklin but our vision best: "In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter [is] not to degrade but to promote them."

Paul Farago Spokesperson, Committee to Restore Oregon's Term Limits

As spokesperson for the initiative / ballot measure (if certified), I accept the broad diversity of support for term limits.

Apparently, however, you do not accept divergent views about the duration of the limits. Lest conservatives believe this is a conservative measure, take note that anyone who doesn't march in lock-step with these people's position is targeted by deep pockets, even if it means funding Democrats who oppose term limits but won't live long enough to break a self-limiting terms pledge over Republicans who support term limits but won't sign the pledge.

Under term limits, was (Simmons) out the door of the legislature after the session he was Speaker and was that why he was looking for a lobbyist job?

I don't think Simmons was term-limited at all, hadn't they already been thrown out by the courts? But even if he was, does anyone think being a part time legislator at low pay would prevent someone from taking a permanent well-paid job?

you'd be better off picking a legislature at random from the phone book.

Isn't that how the Greeks did it? I am not sure that we wouldn't get far better representation from a random cross section of people than we do from the self-selected bunch who get elected. Juries actually work pretty well that way. Select a third of one house every two years to six year terms and see what happens. Assuming people did a good job, they could run for the election to the other house. That would create some accountability.

I always vote against term limits on the basis that people should be free to elect their representatives. Serena Cruz Walsh on the Multnomah County Commission has shown one of the problems with term limited representatives. They can stop being responsive at all to the voters.

On the other hand I don't grieve very much when they pass and throw out a bunch of entrenched incumbents. You will notice very few of the people thrown out by term limits have been returned to the legislature now that they are no longer subject to them. I think that may be an indication that they weren't as valuable as some people seem to think. It was incumbency, not ability that kept them there.

Pete:

You're right, my argument is based largely on my intuitions. In fact, it's not really an argument as much as a cry for help.

That said, I'd like to know what impact term limits have had in places where it has become the institutional norm, rather than the temporary experiment. I would like to believe that where it has become the norm, a different type of representative emerges, one who has the long view in mind because he's got to live in his district after he quits the legislature. We will certainly remember the legislator who seeks the short-term splash, because that's so obviously the wrong thing to do. We don't remember the guy who takes the long view, does the unsexy, and goes home.

Should Barney (or anyone) represent his district in perpetuity? I just think that creates an industry around maintaining that power. And I believe that (1) changing the hands of power on SOME relatively periodic basis, (2) bringing in fresh ideas and representation by those still living in the real world, and (3) attracting candidates with a mind to do their part for a brief period to serve their community as opposed to as a career move

are all good things, and are all things that term limits encourage. Democratic seats will always have a democrat. So there's no worry that "my guy" will get tossed and replaced with someone philosophically repugnant to me.

The argument that bureaucrats will take over once term limits are in place assumes that somehow the legislators have them under control now, which I think is somehow less than accurate. I think there's a lot of salami hidden in Salem. (Thanks for that, Rob, I think salami's going to be hiding throughout the rest of this thread LOL)

paul is right. We need a non-partisan redistricting process. The major reason incumbents, even bad ones, can stay year after year is they're in safe districts. A completely neutral, largely mechanical process of drawing districts would prevent that outcome.

Yes, a few seats would wind up as safe seats, just from demographic happenstance. Oregon's congressional districts are a fairly good example: we have a reliably Republican 2nd (rural) district, a devotedly Democratic 3rd (heavily urban) district, and the 1st, 4th and 5th Districts are all swing districts where a solid challenger could knock out a bad incumbent, regardless of party.

Get rid of partisan gerrymandering, and we could see fairly healthy turnover in the legislature without leaving our state in the hands of inexperienced first-term rookies and unaccountable second- and/or third-term lame ducks.

<h2>We already have term limits; it's called voting.</h2>