April 4, 2022

Why term limits are bad for North Dakota

Topic: Issues

by Pete Hanebutt, NDFB Public Policy Director

The idea of term limits has been around for several decades and has been driven by a populist idea which says long-time incumbents, regardless of who they are, should be excluded from seeking re-election. Most of these term limit proposals are focused on state legislative office holders, and not statewide or local officials. Many states have limits on the governors’ terms, but not always on other statewide officials such as auditors or state treasurers. Some of this debate appeals to rank-and-file voters, but looking into what limiting state legislative terms would actually translate into for the taxpayers reveals terrible unintended consequences the rural citizens of our state, and probably for urban areas as well. Moreover, we won’t fix problems in Washington, DC, by hurting ourselves at the state legislative level.  

Since the 2015 legislative session, 27 of the 47 North Dakota Senate seats will have turned over after this fall’s election. Of the 94 State House seats, half will be in different hands after this fall. This natural turn-over which takes place on a regular basis begs the question: What’s the need for term limits? Half the legislative seats turning over in less than 10 years seems to indicate we don’t have a problem. Considering the current proposal to limit terms has nothing to do with other officials, such as county commissioners, would we actually solve perceived problems?

Michigan was one of the first to adopt state legislative term limits in the 1990s. A study by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reveals no tangible benefit to the voters after term limits took effect. Quoting the study: “With respect to the legislature as an institution, term limits appear to be redistributing power away from the majority party leaders and toward governors and legislative staffers,” Term Limits in State Legislatures (umich.edu). As a long-time observer of the legislative process, I would contend unelected bureaucrats within state agencies benefit more than legislative staff members. Without long-term incumbent legislators, we lose the institutional knowledge to challenge state agencies and their self-serving motivations. Paraphrasing the Michigan study further reveals that term limits have had considerably less effect on state legislatures than proponents predicted.

When the current proposal started gaining momentum in North Dakota, I contacted my Farm Bureau colleagues from the term limited states within the Midwest and Montana. The response was unified and consistent: None of the other state Farm Bureaus have been pleased with term limits. In addition, each state said that if they could, they would return to no term limits. The most telling response came from our neighbors to the west where John Youngberg has been involved with Farm Bureau public policy for more than 30 years. He reports that Montana Farm Bureau struggles to keep ag friendly legislators. Whenever someone is term limited out, often, they are replaced by someone with very little personal connection to production agriculture.         

From a personal voter perspective, I am somewhat frustrated that an organized group pushing for term limits can tell me I have no right to continue to support the incumbent legislators of my own choosing. I may like my current State Representatives and State Senator, so why should other people be able to tell me I can’t keep them if that’s what I desire? Wouldn’t term limits steal my ability to vote for legislators I personally support?

Term limits will hurt North Dakota in so many ways; primarily in effecting our ability to find good candidates who will look out for production agriculture. But also, as the Michigan study lays out, it won’t fix the perceived problems alleged by the proponents. In addition, term limits restrict my ability to vote for the candidates of my choosing. Legislative term limits are a bad idea for North Dakota. They will empower the bureaucracy of state government, further empower governors over the legislative branch, and limit voters’ ability to choose their own preferred candidates.  All for no appreciable gain.