Supporters of Proposal 1 argue that the six-year term limit for the House encourages members to seek Senate seats when they become available, instead of focusing “on the serious work of legislation in the chamber where they were elected.”[8]
It is no surprise that many House members set their eyes on a Senate seat. Under the current term limits system, the way for legislators to serve in office as long as possible is to win three elections in the House and two in the Senate. Politicians running for these offices work hard to win their elections and tend to run for reelection. Furthermore, the majority of legislators, since term limits were put in place, left office because they were termed out, not because they opted not to run or failed to win reelection. This suggests that the most legislators would serve for longer than the current limits allow if given the chance.
Proponents of Proposal 1 also argue that legislators with more experience are better at meeting constituents’ needs. The job of a legislator, they argue, is not just to pass legislation but to advocate for the people they represent. For example, a resident may have a complaint about how, say, the state government is applying wetland regulations to his or her property. The constituent’s legislator might advocate on their behalf with the state’s administrative branch. These types of disputes can take years to resolve, and legislators with more experience are more likely to produce satisfactory results for their constituents, supporters of Proposal 1 say.
Proposal 1 would likely result in lawmakers having, on average, more experience. Those who serve in leadership positions would also likely hold those roles for longer periods. Since term limits began, four out of 11 House speakers have served for more than a single term. Seven of the House speakers held the role for just two years before running up against term limits.
This is seen in California’s experience after it changed to 12-year term limits. Its current Assembly leader served two terms before being selected as Assembly Speaker and has served in that role since 2016.[9]
Proponents of the current term limits, on the other hand, argue that offering opportunities for legislative leaders to hold their positions longer is not beneficial. Patrick Anderson, one of the advocates for Michigan’s current term limits, says that powerful and connected leadership is a detriment to good governance.[10] Seasoned politicians are more likely to use their experience and power to obtain perks for themselves and their districts, not necessarily to pass good and popular legislation, according to Anderson.
He adds that more entrenched legislative leadership comes at the cost of newer legislators. Their influence would likely be weakened if the proposal is adopted.
Proponents of the current term limits also argue that these limits better serve the populace. Creating more turnover helps ensure that aspiring legislators better reflect their constituents’ current interests.[11]
Shorter terms for legislators prevent against lawmakers becoming so-called career politicians, who are often accused of focusing on advancing their own political careers at the expense of representing their constituents. The current term limits mean more people who have lived and worked alongside their constituents in their community will run for office. These lawmakers, proponents of the current term limits argue, are better equipped to represent the interest of their constituents.