The South Dakota Searchlight website has an editorial from yesterday noting the problems with legislative term limits, and why they’ve literally been one of the worst things to ever happen to the South Dakota legislature. And why limiting them even further is not going to make a better legislative body for South Dakotans:
There are only so many people in the state who love policy-making enough to leave their families and businesses to spend the winter commuting back and forth to Pierre. Artificially limiting that pool of candidates by kicking seasoned, veteran lawmakers out of office is not the way to ensure good government.
and..
Let’s hope that those voters look past the “term limits” heading on Hoffman’s petition and consider the ramifications of giving bureaucrats and lobbyists the upper hand over a body that’s supposed to be doing the people’s business. Good candidates are hard to find. We shouldn’t be showing them the door just because they have the temerity to keep winning elections.
Read the entire editorial here.
I was speaking with a wise old grey beard a few years ago.
The first thing I asked him to do was turn off his cell phone.
Then, I said, “don’t we need term limits?”
He responded, “[then the unelected bureacrats will just be fed fresh meat. We need experienced politicians who know how to work around them].”
It shifted my paradigm.
Then, it hit me.
If elections are credible, there is no need for term limits.
That’s an argument I hear from time to time, but I don’t find it to be factual or compelling. Some legislators who have been there a long time are easily influenced by unelected bureaucrats (as you put it). Some legislators who have just arrived are not at all influenced by uneleected bureaucrats. Like in most jobs, it depends on the person…their background, expertise and character. The need for term limits isn’t tied to the credibility of elections, but to the need for leadership and mentoring, experience and ideas. I’d say more, but the discussion is probably better served in a public forum or debate. Thanks for listening.
It looks like Sen. Hoffman has been influenced by bureaucrats and is working to get rid of seasoned voices sent to serve the people.
Well played Bureaucrats. Well played.
The special interest group pushing this is called “US Term Limits”. Their team and lobbyists, if they haven’t already, will be providing Sen. Hoffman with Bill language drafts, testimony, talking points, and eventually campaign contributions. US Term Limits took in over $5 Million in 2020 as a non-profit 501c4 with a large percentage of that “educating” individuals on Term Limits.
PACs like Term Limits Action raise and spend millions of dollars on their own special interests, like the work the Senator is carrying here. This money is largely from three donors. Their largest doner is an individual who works for a Chicago-based brokerage firm who specializes in creating and trading markets on exchanges where sports betting is legal.
That’s who’s behind this.
I generally don’t respond to anonymous comments, especially ad hominem attacks, but that point is factually incorrect. I researched and wrote the bill language by myself, with no input or association with U.S. Term Limits. I’ve funded the administrative and coalition from my own pocket. U.S. Term Limits has not provided me with any assistance of any kind. Should this organization later offer to help, I’ll consider it, as I would for any person or organization, but U.S. Term Limits is not behind this effort in any way.
well said though the debate will continue on what constitutes a credible election result. re: term limits – the most fervent supporters of term limits who got elected and had to abide by them, got to year seven and greatly regretted them, since they’d only recently felt like they were finally good at the job and could do another dozen years of great service with no problem. so maybe the term limit should sit at twenty years.
Thank you for sharing this commentary for South Dakota Searchlight, as I hadn’t heard of it. I’ll give Mr. Hess a call and see if Searchlight would like to consider another opinion. Some parts of the commentary are well-reasoned, but there are also errors in fact and false assumptions. Though I expect ad hominen comments to follow, if anyone would like to ask a question or make an argument, I’ll be happy to address it. Anyone is also welcome to contact me directly, as I’m always listening and learning from other opinions.
Largely true. Not LITERALLY one of the worst things to ever happen, but the Hoffman proposal would be more appropriate if the state legislature was a full-time endeavor. Under his idea, a person can serve 16 years. The legislature generally meets around 38 days. Not counting any interim work, that’s 608 days of service. When you consider that an average full-time employee puts in 50 weeks/yr (less vacation/leave) that’s 250 days/yr. So after the equivalent of 2-1/2 years of full-time service (spread over 16 years), the person is arbitrarily pink-slipped.
There’s value to term-limits. No harm in making a person hit RESET. After some time away, or even by switching to the other chamber they probably have a little different perspective. What we have now is workable. What Hoffman is proposing is imprudent.
Imagine if a young person like Jenna Haggar or Jason Frerichs served for 10’ish years in their 20’s/30’s, then wanted to run again in their 60’s. Telling them they’re only able to serve another 6 or 8 years would be preposterous. With all that life experience in between, they’d probably have even more to offer later in life. Why would we enact something that discourages a person from running at any point in life? Let the voters decide.
Drew Dennert has 2 more years he can serve SD.
That is 2 years to long.
Only the well off can afford to be a SD politician. A wage earner can’t afford to miss work and his employer would probably fire him for going to sessions. But the last thing republicans want is working people making policy.
Term Limits are a terrible idea, period. Term Limits certainly have not improved the quality of the legislation written and passed in Pierre nor has it made any discernible improvement in our citizens quality of life.
Hoffman is opposed to unfactual assertions and ad hominem attacks. His proposal is one, for instance his premise long serving legislators are unfit is by definition ad hominem.
Nothing he says makes sense. Thus, what makes sense is he is on the take.
Senator Hoffman, just so you know , most people don’t have any problem taking sides on issues like term limits. I support it. Anonymous comments are anonymous for a reason, and that reason is because they are some of the people you work with in the senate. Pay no attention to the critics and press on the voters will support it.