Some legislators have introduced a bill to extend the terms for both
state senators and representatives, from two-year terms to four-year
terms (See HB 71 and SB 120–these links also show the sponsors that want this change). These bills would amend the state constitution.
This is just another incumbency protection measure. First, there
is the drawing of legislative districts to ensure victories by
incumbents. Many legislators are pushing taxpayer financing of
campaigns that equalize funding between candidates. This
“equalization” helps the incumbents because challengers have a
difficult time overcoming the built-in advantages for incumbents (such
as name recognition).
Taxpayer financing and campaign finance restrictions (such as bans on
political speech before elections) help to limit the communications
coming from anyone other than the candidates. Dissent and
criticism must be contained. The legislators have yet to ban all
political speech,
but the North Carolina legislature certainly is trying.
Now we have this four-year term bill. Currently, the legislators have
to actually raise money and get support every two years (assuming they
even have a competitive race, which most don’t). When the public
contributes to campaigns, the contributions themselves are a critical
measure of support (or lack thereof) for the legislator.
State legislators should be held accountable every two years and
turnover, or at least the chance of turnover, is desirable, especially
with what is supposed to be a “citizen-legislature.”
According to this article:
__________
The measure raises an issue in perennial
discussion over the past
decade, with backers sayin less-frequent elections would mean less time
spent raising money
to run for office.
“It would take half the money out of it,” said Rep.
Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat and the House majority leader. “We start the session, spend our first year
here, and then we spend the whole second year campaigning.”
__________
Where’s the evidence that less money actually would be involved in
campaigns? If an election were every four years, the importance
of that race (because the seat is open less frequently) would likely
drive far more money into each campaign. Legislators also would
simply raise money for a longer period of time before they were up for
re-election, thereby making it even more difficult for challengers.
I actually would support this bill, if: there were term limits on
all legislators (two terms), chamber leaders, committee chairs, and a
requirement that bills sponsored by 50% or more of a chamber’s members
must be voted on by the full chamber.
If these legislators were really concerned about the influence of
special interests (as opposed to trying to make it easier for
themselves by protecting their power), they would pass these other
reforms. Most of the changes don’t even need to be done through a
constitutional amendment.
