Here we go again.
Arkansas voters might be considering another measure to set term limits for state lawmakers in 2016.
At least that's the goal of a group that won approval last week for wording of a proposed constitutional amendment.
The group, Restore Term Limits, can now begin gathering signatures from registered voters to put the issue on the 2016 ballot.
Mind you, Arkansas just voted in 2014 to extend legislative term limits. But proponents of the new measure, which would significantly reduce how long anyone could serve in the state Legislature, contend voters were essentially duped by that last proposal.
They have a point. The current term limits were wrapped into Issue 3, a good government measure that also carried ethics reforms.
The ballot title, which is all voters saw on their ballots, barely mentioned term limits. Voters were asked to vote for or against a proposed amendment carrying a variety of ethics reform "and establishing term limits for members of the General Assembly."
The more detailed information was certainly available to voters and there were plenty of pre-election reports that spelled out what voters would be approving, if they did.
Voter approval really was a surprise to many, who had gotten accustomed over the years to a public staunchly in favor of strict term limits in Arkansas.
But, finally, a measure to ease the limits was on the ballot and it passed.
The resolution by which the Legislature referred the issue to voters struck old language that had limited House members to three two-year terms and Senate members to two four-year terms. In its place was a cap on the total number of years a lawmaker may serve.
That's what voters considered and approved in 2014, a cap of 16 years, which may be served in either chamber or a combination of years in both.
That sounds simple, but it really isn't. Partial terms don't count toward the 16-year limit, so a senator who draws a two-year term after reapportionment could serve longer.
Voters may or may not have understood what they were approving as they relaxed term limits. Nonetheless, just shy of 53 percent of voters approved the measure.
And, for those of us who see a downside in term limits, it was a welcome change.
The most obvious downside to term limits has been the decline of institutional knowledge in the Legislature.
Rapid turnover of House and Senate seats leaves little opportunity for lawmakers to develop real expertise in areas like revenue and taxation, education and other matters.
The 2014 amendment, while still not allowing anyone to serve in perpetuity, should let lawmakers learn the ropes and remember what has been tried before, what worked and what failed.
Remember, too, that every lawmaker is still answerable to the electorate. Anyone can be turned out by voters after a first term or at any point along that 16-year time line established by the 2014 amendment.
So keep that in mind when someone shoves a petition under your nose to do away with current term limits.
The organization, Restore Term Limits, wants to cut that 16-year total to 10 years, again limiting House members to three two-year terms and Senate members to two four-year terms.
But their proposal would also take away from the Legislature the ability to refer any changes in term limits to voters.
That's a major change. Any future alteration of term limits would have to come through the initiative process.
"We think that if the Legislature is going to fight the voters on this anymore, they need to get signatures just like regular citizens do," said Tim Jacob, spokesman for Restore Term Limits.
The process isn't easy and Restore Term Limits won't get its proposal to roll back term limits on the 2016 ballot unless it can gather more than 84,000 valid signatures for its petition.
All the group has gotten so far is approval from Attorney General Leslie Rutledge that the proposed wording is sufficient.
But that's the first step toward yet another term-limits vote in Arkansas.
Commentary on 08/12/2015