If you feel as if you are forever voting on something regarding term limits, you are correct.
Arkansas has had something on the ballot or something trying to make its way onto the ballot in 1992, 2004, 2014, 2018 and now again in 2020.
There was a time when, before 1992, state lawmakers could serve for as long as they could keep getting elected. That led to a very well informed lawmaker but also to a system in which lawmakers wielded enormous power in the state and one that invited corruption.
The way to fix that, the thinking was, was to put limits on the number of years someone could be in the Legislature. Through a citizen initiative, meaning enough signatures were gathered to get the proposal put on the ballot, voters elected to limit the number of years someone could be in the House of Representatives to three two-year terms or six years, and limit the number of years someone was in the Senate to two four-year terms or eight years. They could also max out in one chamber and then head over to the other and max out there.
Then six years ago, voters, through a legislative proposal, changed the law to limit lawmaker terms to a total of 16 years, meaning they could spend all 16 years as either a representative or senator or split those years between the two.
Now comes another legislative proposal. It's called the Arkansas Term Limits Amendment. It's a little surprising that the proposal wasn't tossed out based on the title alone, considering the thrust of the proposal is to slip around the whole idea of term limits. So it pays to read the fine and not-so-fine print.
This proposal, which has been referred to as a "term extender" because it extends the time a lawmaker can serve, allows a lawmaker to continue serving as long as they take a couple of years off here and there.
As the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service stated, in the area reserved for those opposing the measure, known as Issue 2: "They could have told voters that this amendment will enable legislators to serve 10 years on and two off for the rest of their lives. Or that the new 12 consecutive year limit doesn't apply to themselves until they've maxed out current term limits. Sixteen years on, four off, 12 on means they can serve 28 of 32 years. For senators, it would be 22-4 12, which would be 34 of 38 years." Yes, 38 years with only a four-year break.
Had this amendment bubbled up through the electorate, we might take a different view of it. But seeing as how lawmakers themselves came up with this idea to take care of themselves, we are not inclined to think favorably of it. Not that 16 years is the perfect amount of time that someone should be limited to being a state lawmaker, but we like that number over the other possibilities under this new proposal. Hence, we are recommending a "no" vote on Issue 2.
And as far as corruption goes, we're not sure term limits have helped much. In the past couple of years, a half-dozen or so state lawmakers have either pleaded guilty to or been convicted of federal charges. That's got to be some kind of record.