When Michigan’s term limits took effect in 1992, incumbent lawmakers could only serve for a further six years in the House and eight years in the Senate. Few lawmakers have since made it to the 14-year maximum.
The Library of Michigan maintains a database of all lawmakers who served in the state Legislature, going back all the way to the state’s founding in 1837.[6] This data can be used to calculate how long lawmakers served under the current term limits and assess what the likely effects of Proposal 1 will be on legislator tenure.
The chart below shows the number of legislative sessions served by the 582 lawmakers elected after term limits went into effect. These sessions are two years long, so elected representatives who max out their term limits would serve a total of seven two-year, legislative sessions.[*] The chart does not include current officeholders because they have not yet been affected by term limits.
The data show that the vast majority of state lawmakers do not reach the maximum number of sessions allowed under term limits. Four out of five lawmakers over this period served for three legislative sessions or fewer. The most common length of service is three sessions, or six years, with 54% of lawmakers serving for this length of time.
The vast majority of legislators get elected to only one chamber. Just 89, or 15%, served in both the House and the Senate over the period. An even smaller portion served the full amount of time allowed under current term limits. Only 48 elected representatives, fewer than one in 10, served the maximum 14 years.
Legislators who served fewer than six years, or three legislative sessions, tend to have lost their reelection campaigns, either at the primary level or in the general election to candidates from opposing parties. About a quarter of lawmakers were voted out of office like this since term limits took effect in Michigan. Elected lawmakers who served exactly six years tend to get term limited out of the House and do not to run for a position in the Senate.
While incumbent lawmakers are generally successful at getting reelected, only a small number of House members make it into the Senate. There are fewer opportunities to run for Senate, with 110 seats in the House compared to only 38 in the Senate. Senate terms last for two legislative sessions, leaving half as many opportunities to run for one of those seats. And with an eight-year maximum, there is less turnover in the Senate due to term limits. These three factors combine to mean there are only 13% as many chances to run for the Senate compared to seeking a seat in the House. Not coincidentally, a similar proportion of House members make it into the Senate. In other words, it is rare for legislators elected to the House to find a spot in the Senate after their term is up.
All of this means that most legislators are term limited out of office by the limit of three terms in the Michigan House of Representatives. Just over half — 52% — of all the legislators elected to office since 1992 were termed out in this manner. The limit of two terms in the Michigan Senate affects only a small number of elected officials.
Thus, the primary impact of Proposal 1, which allows legislators to serve 12 years total in either chamber, would loosen the term limits that most commonly affect lawmakers. Instead of being limited to three terms in the House, elected officials would be able to serve six terms. That effectively doubles the allowable time served for all but the small number of officials elected to both chambers.
Those few officials would have their potential service time limited by two additional years. Instead of being allowed to hold office for 14 years combined between the House and Senate, they could serve a maximum of 12 years. But, if historic trends hold, this will affect fewer than one in 10 legislators.
If voters pass Proposal 1, there may be even fewer politicians seeking to win seats in both the House and Senate, however. A secondary effect of the proposed changes is that elected officials will likely be less willing to seek office in both chambers. If they want to stay in office as long as possible, the easiest path will be to stay in the chamber to which they were first elected. For instance, it seems unlikely that many incumbent House members would risk their position for a seat in the Senate when term limits apply equally to both. Similarly, senators who have already won a seat would be unlikely to pursue a position in the House.
Some of this can be seen in California’s experience after changing its term limits in 2012. The state had term limits that allowed people to serve three two-year terms in its Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. Then it enacted a 12-year limit in either chamber. While no one has reached the 12-year limit yet, Assembly members are serving longer in that chamber. There are currently 37 of its 80 members, 46%, who have served for more than six years.[7]
[*] Four lawmakers served for more than seven legislative sessions over this period. They served partial legislative terms, filling vacancies created by lawmakers resigning their office in the middle of the term. Serving a partial term does not count against a person’s term limits if the partial terms lasts less than half the total term.