By John Lindstrom
Publisher
Posted: November 21, 2019 4:46 PM

Is it possible, truly possible, that after 27 years changes may come to Michigan's term limits system?

Changes, mind you, not repeal. And most likely changes to the legislative requirements of three terms for House members, two for Senate members and then that's it.

Might changes finally happen?

Wednesday's announcement of a lawsuit brought by eight former Democratic and Republican legislators challenging term limits as unconstitutional based on the U.S. Constitution because it denies them access to run does take a new tack in the arguments against term limits, though a federal lawsuit against the 1992 constitutional amendment failed in the late 1990s.

And it comes as Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake) has said discussions need to happen on term limits. Voters Not Politicians is interested in changing term limits. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce is considering the issue.

All these developments point to an intensifying focus on at least changing term limits (plenty of people would love to repeal term limits but accept the political reality such a move likely would not fly), an intensity on taking action that has not been seen in all the other discussions of changing term limits.

But what drives this new intensity? In fact, it is the same points opponents to term limits have argued all along. One, that the time limits are too short for lawmakers to develop much of the expertise and knowledge needed to make policy based on actual policy matters and not just politics.

Second, that term limits leave lawmakers with too little time to develop the relationships, understandings and even friendships needed to build a political framework to enact policy questions.

At the press conference on Wednesday, lead plaintiff Republican former Sen. Roger Kahn said road funding is a perfect example of an issue that remains unsolved in part because lawmakers don't have enough time to both make relationships and gain the technical knowledge needed.

And Republican former Rep. Paul Opsommer said House members have their most productive term in their third and last term. Again, when they have both developed relationships and policy expertise.

Again, these have been the points all opponents of term limits have hammered on for now 27 years. They lead, however, to an overriding point which ironically was one argument of term limits to begin with.

Ability to learn and create relationships allows a lawmaker to build credibility and independence from partisan hackles, interest group influence and to some measure of popular opposition. The lawmakers can then actually work on the issues they think best will serve the public.

Which term limits was actually supposed to help happen through the argument that giving folks a short time frame means they wouldn't become beholden to anyone else. Good strategy using a bad tactic in term limits.

Bringing us back to the original question: Is it possible changes may come to term limits? Yes, it is more possible now than it ever has been. Besides the ongoing actions though discussions and legal efforts there is one other reason why.

Patrick Anderson, head of the Anderson Economic Group, has long said once term limits had a full workout – and by that he meant all the lawmakers who had been elected before 1992 were gone from office and only fully-term limited legislators had served through a full cycle – he would be willing to discuss whether changes to term limits are justified.

No one has taken him up on that offer to talk, Mr. Anderson said in an interview yesterday. Maybe all those interested in changes should pick up the phone and see what might transpire. That really might push term limit changes along.