Put term limits on expertise in government? Here’s how to vote on Missouri Amendment 1
Missouri Amendment 1 is a flawed solution in search of a nonexistent problem. Missourians should vote no on Amendment 1 in the Nov. 3 election.
Term limits have a reflexively populist appeal, no doubt. But extending them to less political offices such as attorney general, secretary of state and auditor, along with lieutenant governor — as Amendment 1 would do — makes little sense.
Wanting new blood and fresh perspectives makes some sense in the legislature and the governor’s office. But in roles that require more specialized skill sets, and for which experience is both hard-earned and invaluable, it’s smarter to leave the lid off.
And the fact is, Missouri’s attorney general, auditor and secretary of state are already term-limited: The citizenry passes judgment on them every four years. Shouldn’t voters at least have the option of keeping seasoned specialists on the job? Why limit their ability to do so? Just to feel like we’ve shortened the government’s leash? That only limits the citizens’ ability to retain talent and savvy.
State Sen. Ed Emery, a Republican from Lamar, thinks so, anyway.
“I look at those positions as more about expertise than politics,” he told The Star.
Emery was one of just three senators to vote against putting the amendment on the November ballot. In the House, only 32 representatives voted against it. Legislators clearly know how bad it can look to be against term limits.
But looks can be deceiving. Term limits could be counterproductive when applied to jobs requiring legal, financial and electoral know-how. We appreciate those lawmakers who stood up and voted against it.
Kansas City state Rep. Greg Razer, now a candidate for the Missouri Senate, and former Rep. Brandon Ellington, now a Kansas City councilman, were two Democrats who said no to the measure.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREWho decides the endorsements?
Members of The Kansas City Star Editorial Board interview political candidates, as well as advocates and opponents of ballot measures. The editorial board is comprised of seasoned opinion journalists and is separate from The Star’s newsroom. The board’s members are editorial writers Toriano Porter and Mara’ Rose Williams — all veteran journalists with decades of experience. Editors Derek Donovan is also a member, and editor David Tarrant, while not a member of the board, reads and often improves each editorial we publish. Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
What does the endorsement process entail?
The Star Editorial Board invites candidates in each race to meet with the board in an on-the-record discussion, the purpose of which is more fully understand what distinguishes one candidate from another. Board members do additional reporting and research to learn as much as possible about the candidates. The editorial board then convenes to discuss the candidates in each race. Board members seek to reach a consensus on the endorsements, but not every decision is unanimous..
Is the editorial board partisan?
No. In making endorsements, members of the editorial board consider which candidates are well prepared to represent their constituents — not whether they agree with us or belong to a particular political party. We do weigh heavily their stances on issues we consider basic tests of judgment and candor, such as whether they even acknowledge climate change as real, or if they continue to deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. We weigh these factors against many others, and state clearly what our conclusions are. Primarily, we evaluate candidates’ relevant experience, their readiness for office, their depth of knowledge of key issues and their understanding of public policy. We’re seeking candidates who are thoughtful and who offer more than just party-line talking points. The editorial board will endorse both Republicans and Democrats, making recommendations about who the best-qualified candidate for each job is.
Why are endorsements unsigned?
Endorsements reflect the collective views of The Star’s editorial board — not just the opinion of one writer. Board members all discuss and contribute ideas to each endorsement editorial.
“My time serving in the General Assembly opened my eyes in regards to the unintended harmful effects of term limits,” Ellington says. “Term limits are appealing in thought, but not in action. From my experiences, term limits erode institutional knowledge as well as promote partisan politics over policy.”
“I just observed how disastrous term limits have been for the legislature,” Razer says. “We are trying to run a $30 billion enterprise composed of six million people. It’s complicated, and not something one can wrap their heads around completely overnight. And now the only people with institutional knowledge are bureaucrats and lobbyists.
“Other than a chief executive — president/governor who yields tremendous power — I’m not sure term limits are as good as they sound.”
A vote for Amendment 1 is a vote against the retention of expertise and experience in some of the state’s most important skill positions. The Star urges a no vote on Missouri Amendment 1.
This story was originally published October 26, 2020 at 5:00 AM.