A bill with 60 North Carolina House co-sponsors would put before state voters a plan to extend legislators’ terms from two years to four.
Anyone with even a casual interest in the political process knows that campaign seasons, from presidential races down to city council contests, have gotten longer.
The era when major campaigns geared up in earnest after Labor Day and ran the few weeks until November is over. On the presidential level the campaigning and consequent fundraising are virtually nonstop. In North Carolina, where state representatives and senators serve two-year terms, the “permanent campaign” can be just as much of a reality.
While we would point out time spent campaigning would be better spent addressing the needs of constituents, it’s not time that’s the real problem. It’s money.
In competitive districts it takes a lot of money to run a campaign, and chasing that money can sometimes put legislators in ethically compromising positions, or in the case of former N.C. House Leader Jim Black, in jail. The appeal of a four-year term is that legislators wouldn’t face the pressure of the two-year cycle, half of which can be spent retiring campaign debts, the other half raising money for the next run.
Rep. Hugh Holliman, D-Lexington, told the News & Record of Greensboro that a four-year term “... would take half the money out of it. We start the session, spend our first year here, and then we spend the whole second year campaigning.”
It’s unclear if doubling terms would have an effect on some of the eccentricities of the current political map in North Carolina. Competitive districts like the 47th N.C. Senate, currently held by Joe Sam Queen, take staggering amounts of cash to win and/or defend. On the flip side of the coin there are a large number of districts politically weighted to the point they’re virtually “legislator for life” seats. Last year 61 House members either ran unopposed or faced overmatched Libertarian opponents, and a sizeable number faced only token challenges. In the Senate, 21 races fell into those categories. If it could be established that a four-year term could change those dynamics, it would give weight to arguments for that change. If not, other options should be brought to the table.
As it stands, the prospects of a change do not appear to be all that promising. State voters would have to vote a state constitutional measure, and that would have to pass before another change in state laws could take effect. The entire matter may be moot, as companion legislation has yet to be introduced in the Senate. Still, the idea is worthy of consideration.
We’re not quite ready to jump on this bandwagon. However, it doesn’t hurt to walk around and kick the tires.
Post a Comment
