This November, voters in Michigan approved Proposal 1, which changed the legislative term limits for the Michigan House of Representatives and Michigan State Senate and greatly expanded the financial disclosure rules for state politicians. These are two very important changes that will help to ensure ethics and accountability in Lansing.
Prior to the passage of Proposal 1, legislators in Michigan could serve a maximum of two four-year terms in the Senate and three two-year terms in the House. After the changes in Proposal 1, legislators will be able to serve 12 years cumulatively between either house. The hope is that this will allow members to hone their skills in one office, while still further limiting the time they can spend in the legislature as a whole.
Critics of term limits have argued that they contribute to unnecessary turnover, as legislators can only serve for a few years. This means that from the moment they get into office, many legislators are incentivized to immediately begin thinking about their next career move. There are also concerns that all this high turnover and short tenure among legislators could make it difficult for officials to gain the experience needed to successfully tackle complex issues. The job of legislating has a tough learning curve — with strict term limits, right as legislators come to fully understand their jobs, they must move on.
Term limits were first implemented in Michigan 30 years ago under a 1992 Constitutional amendment. The original argument in 1992 was that term limits would help reduce the number of career legislators and increase diversity. Proponents also argued that term limits would help limit the power of lobbyists and interest groups. However, there are questions to be raised about whether these term limits were effective or if they actually increased the power of lobbyists instead, as inexperienced legislators were forced to rely on the recourses and institutional knowledge of special interests.
Concerns about inexperienced lawmakers and lobbyist control have gained prominence recently with the investigation into former Republican House Speaker Lee Chatfield, who served as speaker of the Michigan House from 2019-2021. He was just 31 when he became speaker, and had only been in the legislature for four years when he was elected to the position.
After he left office, Chatfield came under investigation by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office for a variety of illicit activities, including embezzlement, campaign finance violations and bribery. Investigations into Chatfield have also detailed how he relied heavily on lobbyists, trading access for money and trips and had several family members on his payroll.
While Chatfield’s alleged actions are an extreme example of corruption in Lansing, his actions underscore the role of lobbyists and big business in our state capital. It is not hard to see how these types of things happen. With a constant revolving door of legislators with little experience, it is easy for lobbyists and big business to take advantage. Having these short terms also means that there are also fewer connections between legislators; this lack of camaraderie might contribute to more partisanship.
This is not to say that the general idea behind term limits is bad. It is undeniable that our government is aging and is often out of step with the views of younger Americans. For many young people, it can be discouraging to feel that so many of our representatives are out of touch with our generation and to know that they have been serving for longer than many of us have been alive. However, we must ensure that in our quest for a younger and more representative legislature, we don’t reduce the efficacy of our lawmakers.
Proposal 1 also had the important provision of adding financial disclosure requirements to the Michigan Constitution. It requires that members of the legislature and top executives release financial disclosures, including donations from lobbyists. This is a major step forward for the state, as it will hopefully encourage more transparency and place less influence in the hands of select lobbyists.
Time will tell if the changes in Proposal 1 are enough to ensure that we have a legislature that works for the people, not special interests. If the issues of legislator turnover and lobbyist control continue at high rates, then more actions will be needed to possibly weaken Michigan’s term limits or further strengthen financial disclosure and ethics laws.
A legislature that works effectively for all Michiganders, without the influence of lobbyists, is something that we can all agree is a good thing to have. That is why we need to continue to analyze the impact of the state term limits on the strength of our legislature, and hold our legislators accountable to maintain their independence and integrity.
Isabelle Schindler is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at ischind@umich.edu.