Just Say 'No' to NCGA Four Year Terms

Most new Legislatures in Raleigh see a few proposed amendments to the State Constitution, and this one so far is no different.

Often, the proposed changes go nowhere.  Maybe they are proposed by the party that's not in power, so they do not have the votes to get on the ballot.  Maybe they are too contentious, so even if they are proposed by members of the party in control they do not go forward out of concern for riling up the opposition for the next election cycle.

Sometimes proposed changes garner lots of media attention and mobilize large segments of society.

“Amendment 1” in 2012 prohibiting gay marriage in the state was one such proposal.  It mobilized social conservatives and progressives alike before passing with over 61% of the vote.  Two years later it gained a second round of attention when it was effectively overturned by the courts in 2014.

Other times, constitutional changes that have a major impact on society hardly get any attention at all.

Last year’s change to allow criminal defendants permission to waive their right to a jury trial was all but ignored by most.  According to a report by the UNC School of Government, North Carolina was the only state to not allow such a waiver and even though the amendment proposed a “fundamental change in how criminal trials may be conducted in this state” it received little attention from the media and “advocacy groups”.

And then there are the proposed changes seemingly designed to help those in elected office more than anybody else.  Unfortunately, two of the proposed amendments this legislative session fall into this last category.

Two weeks ago, a pair of bills were filed proposing to extend the terms of Legislators from the current two year terms to four year terms.

House Bill 180, sponsored mainly by House Democrats, proposes 4-year terms for Representatives and Senators with a two term limit for the leadership positions of House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tempore.

Senate Bill 271 sponsored by four Republicans – including Senator Jeff Tarte of Cornelius – goes a step further by proposing 4-year “staggered” terms.  Under this scheme, only half the House and Senate would be elected every two years.

S271 also seeks to implement term limits for all members of the General Assembly.  Legislators would be allowed up to four consecutive terms “in a legislative chamber”.  It is unclear whether the term limits provision would mean a maximum of 16 consecutive years in Raleigh or potentially up to 32 years if an elected official maxed out 4 terms in each chamber.

Multiple requests to Senator Tarte’s office have gone unanswered to clarify this point and include his comments on the bill for this story.

Locally, debating this type of change may sound eerily familiar.  Back in 2011/2012, the Town of Davidson was considering a similar change to four year staggered terms for its elected officials.

If these bills go forward and make their way onto the ballot this November, you can be sure you’ll hear some of the same reasons why it is a good idea.  Supporters will say it “provides stability” by reducing turnover in a given election cycle.  They will tell you longer terms allow elected officials to spend more time on long-term projects rather than campaigning.  They will say it will take some of the money out of politics.  They will make it sound like a good idea.

But here are some of the other impacts.

• Four year terms for all legislators provides less accountability and a lot of time for individual members to make mischief between one election and having to face voters for reelection.

• In an environment where we already have very few competitive districts due to gerrymandering, cutting the number of districts in half on the ballot in a given election cycle will further concentrate money into an even smaller number of competitive races.

• Four year staggered terms makes it much more difficult for the party not in power to take over an elected body – even if those in power deserve to be ousted.  It is not good for small-d democracy.

In 2012 after hearing from voters, the Town of Davidson abandoned plans to make this type of change and lengthen terms for elected officials.  Here’s hoping our legislature and particularly those sponsoring these bills see the light and do the same here.

If legislators really want to give the public a choice on something voters may actually want, they could put a straight up term limits amendment on the ballot.  However, if the price of term limits is longer terms with reduced voter impact, then the price is too high.

Reshaping North Carolina Via the Ballot Box

With the new General Assembly only two weeks old, a theme seems to be taking shape that could result in North Carolina voters having a large say in reshaping how government operates here in the Old North State.  If successful these changes would enshrine some small government principles into the State Constitution and change how the judges who interpret that Constitution are elected.

Every Legislature has a number of proposed amendments, but few make it to the voters.  Last session the big one was the controversial "Amendment 1" regarding same sex marriage.  Many others however can not muster the three-fifths vote needed in each chamber of the legislature to get on the ballot.  The UNC School of Government has a good piece here on those that did not make it in 2011.

What will be different this time?  The veto proof Republican majorities in both houses of the Legislature, that's what.  With 77  Republicans in the House and 33 in the Senate, they have the votes to put anything they want on the ballot.  If they choose to do so, several amendments are currently targeted for the November 2014 General election - making that a particularly big day for the voice of NC voters.  It is hard to see these not passing if the citizens are given a say about them.

Here is what we may have in store.  If they ultimately pass, private property will be protected, term-limits will be in place for leadership of the General Assembly, and North Carolina will protect its status as the least unionized state in the Union by elevating its right-to-work laws.

Eminent Domain - "Private property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. Just compensation shall be paid and shall be determined by a jury at the request of any party."

Annexation Amendment - "The General Assembly may not authorize any annexation initiated by a city, town, or other government subdivision unless the eligible voters living within the proposed area of annexation, and they alone, are allowed to vote, and the proposed annexation is approved by two‑thirds of those voting. Such election shall be placed on the ballot in accordance with law within the proposed area of annexation for the general election next occurring after the municipality proposes the annexation. This paragraph does not prohibit property owners from requesting annexation if they so desire. No city, town, or other governmental subdivision may exercise any jurisdiction beyond the corporate limits."

Speaker/Pro Tem Term Limits - "No person may serve as Speaker in more than two General Assemblies. The initial convening of a session of the General Assembly after the terms of members commence shall constitute a new General Assembly for the purpose of this Section. Only service as Speaker during any part of an odd‑numbered year constitutes service as Speaker for that General Assembly for the purpose of this Section."

NC Right to Work/Secret Ballot Amendments - "The right to live includes the right to work. The exercise of the right to work must be protected and maintained free from undue restraints and coercion. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of North Carolina that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization or association."

However, regardless of what happens with any of the proposed amendments, it's up to the judiciary to interpret the laws and ultimately the Constitution.  Bills have been already been introduced in both houses of the Legislature which would restore partisan elections for our judges.  If passed, that too should push the state in a more conservative direction.

There is a reason bills H65 and S39 are titled "Restore Partisan Judicial Elections".  In the past they used to be that way.  Previous Democratic legislatures made judicial elections non-partisan because too may Republican judges were winning even though Democrats have huge registration advantages in the State.  It seems even when North Carolinians were electing Democrats to make their laws, they wanted more conservative Republicans to help enforce them.  More on that here.

Elections matter.  The new Republican General Assembly may be about to put on a good display as to why.

UPDATE: And the march continues with Senate Bill 82 filed on 2/13.  This bill would eliminate straight ticket voting.  Shockingly, people would be expected to have some idea of who they are voting for in each race.