Arizona should consider referring true term limits for themselves to voters

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” – Matthew 7:3 (KJV)

SCR1014 and HCR2022 are advocating for a Constitutional Convention to consider the issue of congressional term limits. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support term limits for every elected office at every level of government, but before our legislators turn their collective eye upon Congress perhaps they should consider referring true term limits for themselves to the AZ voters.

Under the AZ Constitution Article 4, Part 2, Section 21. “…No legislator, after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until he has been out of office for no less than one full term.”

Meaning, that in real terms, our legislators can, and do move back and forth between the House and Senate ad infinitum without ever being required to leave the collective body of the Legislature. Often the “deal” is cut between the term-limited senators and representatives to flip seats before their final session begins. If similar term limits (and it’s a big IF – not the similar but the term limits) were to be adopted for Congress would it allow for the same type of endless “chamber hopping” which occurs at our state legislature? While obviously, at least theoretically, much harder to achieve on the national level, somehow it always seems that the powerbrokers manage to cut their deals – don’t they?

I once had a discussion with a political acquaintance who opposed legally imposed term limits. He pragmatically argued, rightfully I suppose, that is the intended purpose of elections. He then philosophically opined that if the Founding Fathers had believed in limiting terms they would have written such into the Constitution. However, I countered that I believed, and still do, that if our Founding Fathers had ever envisioned a day when elected office would become a career unto itself or a second, post retirement career; with more elected officials than not running for re-election time and again “serving” (whom?) for decades, and that Political Science would become a major to that end, they would have done exactly that. His response? Touché.

The Arizona Constitution defines our government as three departments – executive, legislative and judicial; not executive, senate, house of representatives and judicial. When Arizona voters considered Proposition 107 (1992); imposing term limits for state officials, did they really intend, or even realize, that this would allow for legislators to serve in the same “department” of government endlessly? How much difference does it really make if the same person services in the same chamber or jumps back and forth between chambers for years on end? Honestly? To me it doesn’t matter; neither is my definition of term limits.

“Physician, heal thyself.” Luke 4:23 (KJV)

2 Comments

  1. Term LIMITS already exist, the VOTE is what sets them! BUT people are too lazy to really use that power and get rid of the scum that make a living in politics. They stay and bottom feed like lawyers and then say they are doing great and wondrous things for the people. Like mclame did for almost 30 years and what do the people of AZ have to show for them? Greedyhalfa is the same way, sits at the trough and is likely drunk most of the time and you never hear from him unless its election time or he has been propped up and made sober enough to slam the AMERICAN PEOPLE in general and the CITIZENS of ARIZONA in particular for not welcoming his major constituents into the state.

    A constitutional convention is something to use as a last resort. Once in session it could be a wrecking ball for the string pullers who have agendas that are not necessarily good for the country. 1. could be for the elimination of the Electoral College (only thing as of now that gives the people of the USA a voice). They want just a few areas (mostly lib zones to speak for the ENTIRE COUNTRY, you know those fabulous zones of intelligentsia like LA, Chicago, New York, Seattle, San Francisco etc. I dont personally share their idiocy and all ya have to do is look at the places named to see if you do.

    Term Limits were once voted in BUT a DEMOCRAP politician SUED and won in the supreme court years ago that they were a LIMITATIOM on his ability to work (?) and make a living. SO dont vote for anything that may have catastrophic impact on the people of this country, just be smart enough to weed out the idiots that are currently in place at all levels. BUT, the PARTIES need to submit for approval people who are caring for the local area, state and COUNTRY. The democraps for example offer the least qualified (just look at last election cycle) and the repubs are just as bad. All these folks have been BOUGHT and SOLD numerous times. The few that care Ms Miller for example are hampered by the total sellouts. There are numerous examples in this area alone, the cot, the bos, the city of oro valley, it just goes on and on.

    SO VOTE THEM OUT, who cares if ‘seniority’ is lost, NEW QUALIFIED people will pick up the slack and if they dont, VOTE THEM OUT on next election cycle.

  2. I’m firmly in favor of term limits, except there are some true patriotic legislators that put the country first. Then you have idiot voters that elect someone like AOC. In that scenario, all you have done is remove an effective legislator and replaced them with a fool. The founding fathers had faith that the voters would look at the person running for office and select the best. They did not foresee voters that would be more enamored with the political party than with their nation and freedom. Seems they were over optimistic about the mental capacity of the citizens.

Comments are closed.