What's good for the goose is good for the gander

As Christmas approached, the never-ending 2024 “short session” of our General Assembly passed a resolution for North Carolina to join eight other states in calling for a convention of states.

The resolution passed, in large measure, out of frustration with a gridlocked US Congress. The 118^th Congress, which began in January 2023, had passed only 150 bills as of December 15^th, continuing a trend of declining inaction and stagnation.

An organization named US Term Limits is convinced that the only way to get Congress functioning again is to impose term limits on members of Congress. Their motto is, “Citizen legislators, not career politicians.” Members of Congress are unwilling to place term limits on themselves, so the states should force the issue.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides that amendments to the Constitution can be made either by Congress or if two-thirds of the states call for a convention to propose amendments. Such a convention has never been called for fear that all manner of other issues might emerge.

The US Term Limits proposal would restrict members of the House, who serve two-year terms, to three terms. Senators, who serve six-year terms, would be limited to two terms. Congress would get new blood, new energy and hopefully we would see more action.

That begs the question: if this is such a good idea, why wouldn’t it be an equally good idea for our North Carolina legislature? We have large numbers of legislators who have served many years, some for decades. We are no longer a citizen legislature. We have career politicians.

Having followed state government for 50 years I would humbly suggest we change legislative terms from two to four years. Currently, no sooner has a legislator been sworn into office than he or she has to begin raising money and running in the next primary, about 14 months away.

We should further restrict the number of terms a lawmaker could serve. Since it takes at least a year for new lawmakers to learn the process and procedures, we think a cap of four terms or 16 years would be good. If a lawmaker can’t get his or her agenda items passed in that time, they aren’t likely to.

Equally important to imposing limits on how many years a lawmaker can serve is the need to restrict term limits on leadership. Currently, Senator Phil Berger has served as the Senate leader for 13 years and has been nominated to serve another two years. If our governor can’t serve but 8 years, legislative leadership shouldn’t either.

When we voted in gubernatorial succession in 1977, we effectively changed how long legislative leadership could serve. Prior to that vote, the House had a rule that the Speaker could only serve one two-year term. The Senate was led (at that time) by the Lieutenant Governor, so the new law allowed that person to lead for eight years. The House correctly believed this further upset the balance of power between the two chambers and changed their rules.

While there is some advantage to continuity of leadership, there are greater disadvantages. Former House Speaker Joe Mavretic says legislative leadership typically spends the first two years working for their constituents. After that they work for themselves or special interest groups.

Once in leadership they are reluctant to relinquish power. They also tend to keep the same committee chairs in place, blocking the way for other lawmakers. It took a revolution to oust former House Speaker Liston Ramsey and his “gang of eight,” who had served as Speaker for six years and was nominated for two more. In 1988, a new group of freshman legislators were elected, people who wanted to ascend to leadership. Led by Mavretic, these freshmen and Republicans led a coup dislodging Ramsey.

We shouldn’t have to resort to these kinds of tactics to get fresh blood in legislative leadership. Leadership term limits are badly needed.

And let’s not stop there. In addition to term limits on legislators and limits on leadership we need to impose session limits on our General Assembly.

North Carolina’s legislative sessions are out of control. Lawmakers just convene and adjourn throughout the year, passing budgets that are due July 1, as late as October. Not only are sessions lasting indeterminate lengths, but they prevent people who make like to serve from doing so.

Many states have limits on the length of sessions and make them work effectively. We suggest that sessions last no longer than 110 session days per year. To force discipline on lawmakers we should cut off all pay and per diems after that time.

Hear us clearly lawmakers: “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.” If term limits are a good idea for Congress, they are equally good for our legislators.

Tom Campbell is a Hall of Fame North Carolina broadcaster and columnist who has covered North Carolina public policy issues since 1965.  Contact him at tomcamp@carolinabroadcasting.com