Effects of term limits in Arizona: irreparable damages.

It was election day, 1992, and a historic question faced me and millions of other Arizonans: whether to adopt a term limits measure that promised to return state government to the people. This seemingly simple, painless prescription to our state's political ills struck me as a common sense idea. I voted for it without hesitation.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Along with 74 percent of those who cast ballots that day, I thought that term limits would make state government more effective and efficient. I thought they would make our lawmakers more responsive to those they serve. I thought they would encourage fiscal responsibility and common sense public policies. However, I was wrong.

Nearly 12 years later, it's clear that term limits are not only an impediment to effective policymaking--they are one of the most destructive political forces in my state's history, purging the Legislature of its most experienced, respected, and effective lawmakers regardless of, and often against, their constituents' will.

The result is a sadly dysfunctional legislature whose inexperience renders it less capable of effectively addressing the state's pressing needs. Without question, the most detrimental effect of term limits is its forced removal of the most experienced lawmakers, denying the legislature of the institutional knowledge so critical to effective policy-making.

In Arizona's case, state lawmakers are prohibited from serving more than four consecutive terms in one legislative body, meaning that the House or Senate's most senior legislators never have more than six consecutive years of experience entering their final term.

This constant replacement of experienced lawmakers with inexperienced, untried, and often overwhelmed new members has a devastating impact on the Legislature's effectiveness in several ways.

First, it makes lawmakers dependent on non-elected actors for information and guidance on complex policy issues. Before term limits, it was common for lawmakers to become so familiar with a particular policy area that they became a resource for other legislators and stakeholders. These members were often committee chairmen, whose mastery of their subject areas was beyond question, making them a formidable force for their constituents.

With some exceptions, this practice has virtually ceased. Today, staff, lobbyists, and executive agency representatives are recognized as the authorities to which lawmakers turn for instruction, making them less capable of making independent judgements and less effective representatives of their constituents.