Rethinking Term Limits, Open Primaries, and the Court

By Bob Melton

Our elected officials used to be the influencers. Now they hire “online influencers” to do it for them.

During my years in the legislature, I came to believe that term limits were a bad idea.

Government is complicated. There is an enormous amount to learn, and passing legislation requires far more than simply having a good idea. You have to understand the rules, the process and, perhaps most importantly, the people involved.

That meant knowing who served on which committees, which committee chairs had influence, what battles were worth fighting and which people you probably did not want to cross, including powerful committee chairs and the Speaker. It also meant understanding the legislation other members were sponsoring and deciding when compromise was necessary.

As a progressive, some of that was difficult for me.

At the time, I believed term limits would simply shift more power to entrenched bureaucrats and lobbyists. And, at least to some degree, I still believe that concern was legitimate.

I had also run as a candidate who refused to accept PAC money. That decision led to one of my first lessons as a newly elected legislator.

Lobbyists began approaching me with large political action committee checks. They were extraordinarily complimentary. As a rookie, I initially thought some of the praise was sincere. Eventually, I figured out that much of it was simply part of the game.

Another legislator gave me some advice: “If they like you so much, tell them to write you a personal check.”

So I did.

That turned out to be another rookie mistake.

Then there was the time I embarrassed a well-known political writer from a prominent Texas magazine during a class I was attending at the University of Texas LBJ School.

None of those mistakes defeated me. I went on to serve two more terms. But they certainly made my legislative life more difficult, and they taught me something important: experience matters in politics.

That was one of the reasons I opposed term limits.

Today, however, I am reconsidering that position.

Times have changed. Elected officials now have access to almost unlimited information and research. Legislative staffs and political organizations have become more sophisticated. Campaigning has changed dramatically. Social media and online influencers have transformed how politicians communicate with voters and build support.

At the same time, incumbency can create enormous advantages that make it increasingly difficult for new candidates and younger leaders to break through.

After reading a proposal from one of the Democratic Party’s veteran thinkers in his latest book, I began reconsidering congressional term limits.

A system allowing members of the U.S. House of Representatives to serve six two-year terms, for a maximum of 12 years, and U.S. senators to serve two six-year terms, also for a maximum of 12 years, now strikes me as worth serious consideration.

Twelve years is enough time to learn the institution, develop expertise, build relationships and accomplish something meaningful. It is also long enough to determine whether someone is truly effective at governing.

Public service should not have to become a lifetime occupation.

I would take that idea one step further and establish a mandatory retirement age of 75 for the entire elected class, including members of the Supreme Court.

Long-serving officeholders, particularly those who gain powerful committee positions, often accumulate tremendous political and financial advantages. Over time, that can make elections less competitive and make it harder for the next generation of leaders to emerge.

There is value in experience. But there is also a point at which experience can become entrenchment.

Age 75 seems to me a reasonable point at which even healthy and capable public servants should make room for others. There are many ways to continue contributing to society without remaining in elected office or holding a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court.

Another reform worth considering is the expansion of open primaries.

Too often, primary elections are dominated by a relatively small group of highly committed partisan voters. Opening the process to a broader electorate could give voters more opportunity to evaluate candidates before the general election and, ideally, allow stronger candidates to rise to the surface.

But voters have responsibilities, too.

Democracy cannot function well if citizens simply show up on Election Day and vote based on a familiar name, a television commercial, a social-media post or the recommendation of an online influencer. Voters have an obligation to become informed about the people seeking to represent them.

My thinking on term limits has changed since my years in the legislature.

Experience still matters. Institutional knowledge still matters. Relationships still matter.

But so does knowing when it is time to leave.

Government should benefit from experienced leadership without becoming a permanent home for an entrenched political class. The challenge is finding the balance between the two.