Akron Beacon-Journal Editorial: Term limits have failed.

September 19, 2003

Termination time. Will legislators admit what they know?

Two Ohio House members have bravely stepped forward to challenge the conventional wisdom about legislative term limits, approved by the state's voters in 1992, years of frustration culminating in misguided action. For too long, the assumption has been that revisiting the issue would be futile. Tyrone Yates and Shirley Smith argue convincingly that voters are now ready to hear the truth about what term limits have done to the legislature's ability to resolve the issues Ohioans care about the most.

Term limits hit in 2000, House members bound to four successive two-year terms and Senate members to two successive four-year terms. Proponents had waged their campaign in 1992 with well-worn, but largely unchallenged arguments used in other states. Term limits would shake up the political establishment. Fresh faces would bring new perspectives. The influence of lobbyists, fund-raisers and unelected bureaucrats would be broken.

Yates, a freshman Democrat from Cincinnati, and Smith, a Cleveland Democrat, correctly see that the reality has been far different. They would take different approaches, with Smith pushing an extension rather than an outright repeal. The two lawmakers are in firm agreement on the current mess at the Statehouse.

A chaotic legislative environment, lacking the crucial guiding instincts of veteran legislators, has resulted. By the time legislators learn the ropes, gaining perspective on the issues and the process, they are forced to leave. Lobbyists, fund-raisers and longtime bureaucrats now exert more influence, not less. Grandstanding for short-term gain replaces the gritty work of tackling long-term problems.

"I wish I knew (why),'' Smith says her constituents who voted for term limits tell her these days. They would like to see action on education and health care. Instead, they get endless debate over issues such as allowing Ohioans to carry concealed weapons.

Yates calls term limits "an artificial answer'' that should be re-examined in light of the legislative record the past three years.

Commentary:
The Beacon Journal editorial board just can't resist taking swipes at the grassroots effort to restore Ohioans' right to choose to bear arms for self-defense, even in an article about term limits.

On this much we do agree - term limits ARE responsible for the seemingly endless debate on concealed carry reform.

The lack of accountability enjoyed by term-limited legislative leaders, whose own constituents would never stand for their obstructionism on concealed carry reform bills, can be laid squarely at the feet of term limits. Term-limits have created lame-duck leaders from the day they are re-elected to their final term. Constituents who were unhappy with Dick Finan's obstructionism on HB274, or who are unhappy with Doug White's obstructing HB12, have no recourse against them.

And some politicians, who wish for job appointments from the anti-CCW governor once they cannot run for re-election, find themselves answering more to Bob Taft's political directives in order to "stay on his good side", rather than supporting legislation their constituents elected them to support.

Click here to read the entire editorial in the Akron Beacon-Journal.

Related Story:
Op-Ed: The curse of term limits in Ohio