(Editor’s note.. Just a disclaimer that this is not an endorsement, as I am opposed to the proposal.- PP)
A Time for Term Limits
by Sen. Brent “B.R.” Hoffman
“If we have term limits here in South Dakota, how is it that your opponent has been in the state house for more than 15 years?”
It’s a question I was asked a number of times of my opponent (a nice guy, by the way) during the 2022 primary campaign, but I’m not sure you’re going to like the answer. Though voters passed an amendment in 1992 limiting legislators to “four consecutive terms or a total of eight consecutive years,” that pesky word “consecutive” has made our term limits little more than a suggestion. As long as a legislator has a break in service (whether a day, a year or a decade) or is elected to the other chamber, he or she may serve indefinitely, meaning “for an unlimited period of time.” Some legislators have served more than 25 years. There is no limit.
Given the widespread public support for term limits, which ranges from 65-85% (depending on the poll) and cuts across party and demographic lines, you’d think it would be an easy fix to remove the word “consecutive” and align term limits with public intent, but nothing is easy in politics. My proposal in the state senate was placed on life support shortly after introduction and died in committee within minutes. It was not unexpected, as to my knowledge, no state legislature has ever passed term limits upon itself, including South Dakota. This is also true at the federal level, where Congress has passed term limits for the president, but will never pass limits upon itself. You’re welcome to quote me.
Fortunately, there is a solution, as glorious South Dakota is one of 16 states whose constitution allows for direct initiative or amendment. Not surprisingly, you may find it interesting there are also 16 states with legislative term limits. The initiated amendment process sets a high bar to place an issue on the ballot, as it should, and it will require upwards of 35,000 signatures to place it on the ballot for the general election of 2024. Our term limits team is preparing to do just that, and we hope you’ll have the opportunity to vote on this amendment in November. The amendment language and explanation is pretty straightforward, as it simply removes “consecutive” and limits legislators to eight years in the senate and eight years in the house or a maximum of 16 years. We believe eight years of service in each chamber is consistent with public intent, good government and the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the coming months, you’ll likely hear some of the pro and con arguments regarding term limits. Regardless of the opposition, we’ll be respectful, factual and working hard on those petitions. Our team will be happy to answer your questions, and we also intend to sponsor debates in several districts across the state. If we’re successful in placing the amendment on the ballot, we’re confident it will pass, as term limits have always passed in every state with an initiated amendment.
We’re hopeful term limits will improve accountability in our government and the people it serves, and you’re welcome to join us as we launch this effort in the next few weeks.
—
The author served a career in the military, surviving the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. He’s a published author, occasional newspaper columnist and currently serves as a state senator for District 9, which includes western Sioux Falls, Hartford and Wall Lake.
A not so great idea brought to us by a guy who just got here to advance his own profile. Wonderful. Those who serve in our legislature do it for little money, few perks and a boat load of angst and consternation. Sound bites and misperceptions drive public support for this. Well informed, seasoned legislators are harder to find now because of increased polarization and social media bombardment but hey, this sound good when I say it out loud, so why not.
The only part of your blogging that is wrong is where you talk about “few perks.” Many in the legislatures do it for all the free lunches and breakfasts and dinners they get while still getting paid. These free breakfasts go to the heads of some, and they start thinking they are seasoned, when in reality, due to the “term limit” of voters taking out the nut jobs, they cannot become seasoned. Seasoned is seasoned, nut jobs are nut jobs.
Anon (June 1, 1543): Thanks for your comments, though I don’t know what you mean by “a guy who just got here,” and I promise you I have zero interest in a profile or advancing it, but I also understand that can only be proven over time. I do agree with you point about the angst and consternation that accompanies public service. Though I presume you want to remain anonymous, and I understand a number of legislators prefer it, I’d be happy to visit with you or have a friendly, respectful debate about term limits anytime you’re willing to reach out.
I didn’t know about thr “break” loophole. I thought it was only they had to switch houses.
It’s not a loophole. It’s a deliberate aspect of the law. Hoffman acts like legislators are getting away with something here, but the word “consecutive” is right there in the constitution, and it means what it means.
This is a bad idea.
The effect of term limits was to create more constant turnover, so we no longer have legislative leaders for more than one or two terms at a time. That can be good and bad. It’s fresh blood, but it gives bid advantages to lobbyists who can be around for decades.
This terrible idea goes a step beyond that – a lifetime ban. A person who serves 4 terms in the State House can never run for State House again – ever.
You can say – well isn’t 16 years enough for anyone? Perhaps, but unlike in DC, there’s not much risk of amassing too much power when our current term limits require a break. And although congressmen can “Go Washington” (ask Tom Daschle!) our part-time legislators spend 80% of their time away from the State Capitol.
Drew Dennert was elected to the State House at age 21 and served three terms, and didn’t run again. He is still only 28 years old. If he had run again and won in 2022 (which he would have), he would be constitutionally banned from ever running for State House again, from any district in the state, for the rest of his life, which could be 70 years or more.
Mike Derby is in the House from Rapid City. He was elected in 2020 and reelected in 2022. But – uh oh! – he also served decades ago, from 1997-2002. He would already be one term over the limit, even though his legislative tenures are nearly two decades a part. His district-mate, Mike Diedrich, would have the same problem in the Senate – he’s been there since 2021 but he’d already be out because of his service in the early 1990s, more than 30 years ago.
There are occasionally legislators who do 8 years in one house, and then later return to that house. So what? If the voters want them, why is this a problem? Would our legislature really be better off if we had thrown out Jean Hunhoff in 2016 rather than allow her to continue to serve as a seasoned member of the appropriations committee? Is it really a problem that Ryan Maher’s friends and neighbors decided to return him to the Senate after a break?
And I know Lee Schoenbeck has his friends and his detractors, but does it really make sense to say that Watertown can never elect him to the Senate again because of that term he served from Webster in 1992? His wife might appreciate that, but should the voters?
What problem are we trying to solve here?
By the way: “Some legislators have served more than 25 years.”
There is not one current legislator who has served more than 25 years. You can see the list here: https://sdlegislature.gov/Historical/Reports/TwentyFiveYear
Since the first legislators were term-limited in 2000, there have been TWO whose legislative service reached 25 years, and both of them served the bulk of that prior to term limits. Gordon Pederson served 26 years in the House from 1977-98 and 2001-08, and Jim Putnam served from 1987-2012, moving between the House and Senate a couple of times.
Jean Hunhoff, if she runs and wins one more time, would be the third.
That’s two, out of the literally hundreds of legislators who have served. And for what it’s worth, Putnam and Pederson were excellent legislators and our state was lucky to have them for as long as we did. (Same for Jean Hunhoff.)
Where does Mr. Kloucek, the most ineffective in the legislatures ever, fall into that pile?
Correction: Stacey Nelson was the most ineffective. He was part of the majority party, yet still accomplished nothing. That district had a long history of sending nothing but bluster to Pierre.
Wait their voters exercised their rights to send those people back to the legislature for over two decades and Hoffman thinks those voters are abusing the system?
Hoffman ran last year again Mark Willadsen. Willadsen served in the House for a total of seven terms over a 20-year period. If this passed, Willadsen could never run for House again. Probably coincidence.
Anonymous (June 1, 1610): It’s true that Rep. Willadsen and I were opponents in the 2022 primary. But that was for the state senate, and he’s certainly welcome and eligible to run and serve in the senate under this proposal, for a full four terms. I haven’t decided if I’ll run for reelection, but it’s unlikely. This proposal has nothing to do with any political opponents or incumbents, as I think it’s bad policy (and form) to write or target policy based on people and personalities.
I am against term limits but since South Dakota has them and it has been exploited who is in there now that has been a long time?
Who are the top exploiters in our legislature with the current so called term limits?
There are no “exploiters,” there are people following the law who are reelected by the voters. If the voters didn’t want them they wouldn’t elect them.
This entire idea is premised on the notion that the voters are too dumb to decide for themselves whether to elect someone or not.
Did the voters originally intend for their legislators to term out of one house and then run for another being the senate? Seems like a loophole that has been exploited. Otherwise why even have term limits?
Term limits is code word for “I am lazy and terrified of running against a seasoned opponent. Also institutional knowledge is bad, I only want special interest groups and lobbyists writing my bills.”
Do we really want more Isaac Latterell’s and Jenna Haggars in the legislature? That’s what term limits have done.
Anonymous (June 1, 1634): God knows, I have many faults and consider every legislator better than myself, but laziness, fear and bill delegation are not among my weaknesses. Most of my fair-minded colleagues will tell you I’m a hard worker. I’ve held office at three different levels, always defeating an incumbent and serving one term. This past session, I presented five bills, four of which I wrote myself and one that I edited, rewrote and coordinated personally. There are certainly better legislators, but I work hard for my constituents, who asked me to take on term limits during the campaign.
Rep Hoffman, if you really wanted to do something constructive with term limits, how about limiting legislators to just 1 or maybe 2 consecutive terms in leadership, then has to sit out of any leadership position for 1 term. This should apply to chairmanships of committees too.
By doing this no legislator could develop a power base for their own personal gain, BUT the institutional knowledge these longer serving members of the legislator have is very important to deal with long serving lobbyists and the executive branch.
Hoffman’s arrogance is nauseating, he pretends to listen to people but really doesn’t really care for anyone else’s opinion other than his own. This whole measure is saying the voters are too dumb and we should all listen to him.
Term limits are great to keep bad legislators like Sue Peterson out of unlimited terms, but you also lose a lot of talent, which gives power to the governor and lobbyists. This is a terrible idea.
Who is paying for this? Is Hoffman self funding or is he getting out of state money?
Anonymous (June 1, 2023): We disagree about Rep. Peterson, as I think she’s a solid legislator, and she’s also a kind, Godly person. I chose her as the House sponsor on a law and order bill this past session, and she did a great job. I do understand your point about power to the governor and loss of talent, but I think there are always talented people out there willing to step up, and leaders who are willing to invest time in mentoring and training them to service. The issue of legislative vs. executive power is a tougher nut to crack, but if you have ideas or proposals, I’d like to hear them.
You want to term limit legislators…don’t vote for them. The present term limits law has not been good for South Dakota.
Term limits are for lazy voters. If you don’t like a legislator, vote them out. Why depend on teh law to dou to.o it for you? If you can’t stick to your diet, do you think they should pass a law forcing y
forcing you to.
Mr. Hoffman is ignorant in the ways of the legislatures. He will be bested by all comers in the the debates about his law bill.
I think it’s unfair to say I’m “ignorant in the ways of the legislature/s” but you’re not the first to say it, I suppose. I’ve studied legislative processes, learned from those who know more, and it’s important for me to try to maintain a collegial relationship with my colleagues. As to debates, I think I’m decent at it, and God willing, we’ll see how that goes first-hand. You’re welcome to send me any questions you’d like or do a point/counterpoint in this forum. I’m also willing to debate the subject in a public forum if we can get it scheduled to your liking. I wish you all the best. Sen. Hoffman
Bring on the term limits. Get new ideas in there.
Actually every time several newbies come aboard with “new” ideas, they try to reinvent the wheel. That is why historical knowledge is so important.
Terms limits are great for the Executive Branch, but horrible for the Legislature. Lobbyists run the show now because there is such little institutional memory among the legislators they have no long-term members to rely on for how to do things. Does anyone on here seriously think having a few Joe Barnett or Jim Dunn like seasoned legislators to offset the Aaron Aylward and Tom Pischke types would be a bad thing?
Next step paid staff for every legislator because term limits are destroying any longevity and influence the legislature has. The only way to retain it will be to hire 50 FTE’s so the knowledge continues to exist.
It’s time for the legislature to have staff. I would suggest a minimum of 1 per legislator and a minimum of 5 for each Leader.
The issue of staffing and institutional memory is a fair point, I appreciate you sharing it. We should always be looking to ways to strengthen organization and legislative decision-making. This past session, I presented a rules proposal for the senate that could make a difference, and my colleagues and I are looking to other ideas for improvement.
I’m against this proposal. SD voters are smart enough to understand whom they elect. If voters think there’s a “loophole” they can close it each cycle. But if the people of SD want to preculde any individual from serving 25 total years in the state legislature, I suppose I could accept that limitation.
What would be needed to completely eliminate term limits and stop this charade? Ballot measure?
People want term limits for other legislators but not theirs.
Exactly. Term limits are about telling someone else who can and can’t represent them. As someone pointed out elsewhere term limits are very anti democratic.
You can tell he isn’t from SD. The term limits law was targeting federal officials and they escaped but local legislators got stuck. Realistically this law should be thrown out for having been multi subjects.
Anonymous June 2 (1546): With respect, I don’t understand the source or motivations of the attacks on my residency, as I’m very proud to be a South Dakotan. Granted, I was born in Iowa, so I suppose I’m not as pure-blood as a native, but I first moved to glorious South Dakota in 1983. I voted for the term limits amendment in 1992. It’s true I’ve lived in other states (and countries) due to my service in the military, but over the years, I’ve also lived in Box Elder, Rapid City, Humboldt, Hartford and Sioux Falls, and I’ve been a South Dakota resident for more than half my life. After I left the military, we lived in Iowa, then my kids and I moved back to South Dakota (permanently) after we lost their mother to cancer. That was in 2012. As to term limits, you’re correct that part of the 1992 amendment included federal officials, but as you probably know, it was later found unconstitutional. The legislature then put forth an amendment to remove the state-level term limits but that failed 76-24. That was in 2008. You’re welcome to check residency or voting records or you may contact me directly, and I’d be happy to answer any questions on term limits or otherwise.
Terms limits are an unconstitutional limitation on the rights of the voter to choose the representatives they want and the right of an individual to seek public office. The only exception is the president for which the 22nd amendment allows limitation.
Bad ideas make for bad law.