Take note of a recent discussion among local state legislators about how to make the Arkansas General Assembly more efficient when it meets in regular session.
Among the comments were two worth further consideration: Dan Douglas’ observation that the state’s term limits law is too restrictive and Bart Hester’s idea to limit the number of bills that can be filed each session. state Douglas representative , a freshmen from WHAT’S THE POINT? District 91 in Benton Arkansas’ onerous legislative County, and Hester, a term limits create too freshman state senator much turnover and lead to from District 1, also in inefficiency more, not less, government Benton County, bring up two legitimate issues we believe are linked.
It comes as no surprise to readers of this space that we believe Arkansas’ legislative term limits are too onerous. By limiting lawmakers to six years in the state House and eight in the state Senate, the law adds to legislative inefficiency, transfers more power to unelected bureaucracies and makes it easier for lawmakers to rely heavily on lobbyists rather than their own constituents. Besides, statesmen aren’t so common that we can afford to waste any of them.
We made the same arguments 20 years ago when the term limits amendment was before the voters, but it passed with overwhelming support. In the subsequent decades, much of those early fears have been realized. Douglas said as much:
“What business will go out there with 40 percent of your work force new each year?” Douglas asked.
Hester complained that the sheer volume of bills presented in each session is monstrous. Hester voted “no” on all bills he hadn’t read, which was quite a few: “I didn’t have time to read 75 bills a night.”
Hester’s correct when he says too many bills are filed, and we think there’s a connection between Douglas’ 40 percent turnover rate and the flood of proposed legislation. Lack of experience and understanding about how the legislative process works leads to an inordinate number of filings, many of which have no hope of becoming law, but clog up the system and delay more important work.
A few of the more memorable examples come to mind: A bill to require high school and junior high sports officials to carry with them results of their most recent eye examinations; a bill to prohibit organic grocers from using clear plastic bags to sell oregano, lest it be confused with marijuana. There are more, but you get the idea.
We even recall one interview with a legislative hopeful in which the candidate basically promised to submit any bill to the General Assembly suggested by a constituent, regardless of its merits. That’s hardly a recipe for successful lawmaking.
Voters will have a chance to address one part of this debate next fall, when a new term limits proposal comes up on the ballot. The new proposal would replace the current limits with a single legislative limit of 16 years in either chamber. That would eliminate some of the legislative job-hopping that takes place and give members a chance to stay in one chamber or the other long enough to work effectively — provided the voters agree and keep sending them back.
That could also provide the additional benefit of reducing the sheer number of bills filed every year. With a more experienced and stable legislative body, the number of doomed or competing bills could be reduced. That would be a better approach to slowing down the filing of bills than an arbitrary numerical restriction.