Bad acts by some Arkansas lawmakers may help fuel a bad decision by this state's voters in November.
The bad acts are well documented and have been the source of constant headlines during the years-long inquiry and prosecutions of those who participated in kickback schemes that have illegally enriched some state lawmakers at taxpayer expense.
Just last week, as a former Springdale lawmaker was sentenced for his part in the bribery scheme, federal prosecutors warned that more indictments are coming from ongoing federal and state investigations.
That strong and continuing whiff of corruption from the state Capitol certainly seems to be influencing voter attitudes toward all lawmakers, helping advance a constitutional amendment to restrict severely how long lawmakers may serve.
Early indicators are that Issue 3 will pass easily in the Nov. 6 general election, if the proposal survives an ongoing legal challenge.
The Arkansas Supreme Court recently named a special master to examine signatures on petitions for the issue in a lawsuit that also challenges the wording of the ballot title.
Meanwhile, the campaign goes on.
Recent polling by Talk Business & Politics and Hendrix College found 67 percent of those surveyed favor Issue 3 while just 18 percent oppose it. The remaining 15 percent are undecided about the issue, which would impose a lifetime limit of 10 years of service in the Arkansas General Assembly.
The statewide survey of 1,701 likely voters was conducted in early September and has a margin of error of just +/- 2.4. That's a good-sized sample and a small margin of error. Take the poll results seriously.
Jay Barth, professor of political science at Hendrix, analyzed those results, citing legislative scandals as factoring into the atmosphere in which these new term limits might reach voters.
He concluded that the pending lawsuit "is the only real barrier to the severe term limits measure being passed quite easily in November."
The amendment's passage, Barth rightly said, would have "major ramifications in the balance of power in state government."
The proposed amendment, if approved, would shorten term limits to three two-year terms in the House of Representatives and two four-year terms in the Senate, prohibiting legislators from serving more than 10 years total, and prohibiting lawmakers from later changing term limits for the General Assembly.
That last wrinkle in the proposal is in direct response to the legislature's referral in 2014 of the amendment that now governs term limits. Voters approved the measure, sold primarily as a legislative ethics reform measure. Tucked into that proposal from the legislature, however, was provision for lengthier term limits (up to 16 years combined in the House or Senate, and more under certain circumstances).
The 2014 amendment referred by the legislature was quite a change from the term limits voters approved in response to an initiative campaign in 1992 that set limits for House members at three two-year terms and for state senators at two four-year terms.
Those who favor stricter limits were more than ready to petition this year not only to tighten the limits but also to bar the legislature from referring different limits in the future.
What's more, the proposed amendment won't just affect newcomers to the legislature. It is written to apply that 10-year lifetime limit to legislators who served as far back as Jan. 1, 1993.
Again, the proposal doesn't just impact the lawmakers who have betrayed the public trust by taking kickbacks or otherwise misusing their offices. The limits apply to all lawmakers -- good and bad, past and future. It also punishes the people they serve, denying constituents experienced representation.
If you're curious, only 15 of the 50 states currently limit the terms of their state legislators. The rest expect their voters to impose limits when they wish at the ballot box.
But Arkansas, like most of the states with legislative term limits, got caught up in a national movement in the 1990s.
Even some former foes of any such limits have come around to accept the idea of capping legislative service.
Issue 3 simply goes too far but is likely to pass, save court action to toss the issue from the ballot.
Commentary on 09/19/2018