Rep. Jeff Perry in His Own Words

Term Limits – What’s Your View?

The subject of term limits often provokes a great deal of debate with passionate feelings on both sides of the issue. Representative Karyn Polito has filed a Constitutional Amendment proposal on Beacon Hill currently known as HD 4409, which has once again started the debate of whether term limits would help make our State Government more accountable and responsive to the voters of Massachusetts. 

Certainly with all the ethical scandals emerging from Beacon Hill, including the last three Democratic Speakers being indicted for felony charges, one does have to question whether cleaning out the elected officials on a regular basis might bring about a more honest, ethical and productive political culture.

Massachusetts law does not currently impose term limits on our elected officials.  This is not because of a lack of interest to do so.  In 1994, you may recall that Massachusetts voters approved Question Four during that year's general election, which set term limits on state political officials of eight years for Constitutional officers, such as Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer and Auditor. State Legislators and members of the Federal House would also have been limited to eight years and twelve years for United States Senators.

While the voters approved the term limits law, it soon was overturned by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1997.  The State's highest court held the law to be unconstitutional, holding that the Legislature cannot pass a law that changes the qualifications for political offices that are found in the Constitution itself.  While I appreciate and agree with the voter's right to alter their system of government, I believe the Court made the correct decision under the language of our Constitution.  Thus in order to enact term limits for state elected officials, we need a constitutional amendment.  So, we are now back to HD 4409.

HD 4409 would amend the State Constitution to allow people to serve in the Massachusetts House or Senate for a total of 12 years, or six legislative terms, in their lifetime.  It would not impose term limits on any other elected officials as Article 1, Section 3 of the United States Constitution controls on the qualifications of Federal members of Congress.

The term limit proposal is not retroactive as written.  The amendment would apply only to time served in the General Court after the date of its passage by the voters.  It also would not apply to any partial term a legislator serves for the purpose of filling a vacancy in office.

I believe term limits are a method to restore the concept of a "citizen legislature" in our Commonwealth; however, the concern remains that voters should have the right to keep a legislator who is doing a good job for their district.   Perhaps the 12-year term limit strikes the appropriate balance between this need and the need to have some continuity and institutional knowledge in the Legislature.

Currently some fifteen other states impose term limits on state legislators. Another four states (including Massachusetts as discussed above) have ruled that term limit initiatives passed since 1990 are unconstitutional, and two states have repealed their term limit laws.  California was one of the first states to pass a term limits bill in the early 1990s, allowing legislators to serve only six years in the State Assembly (two three-year terms) and eight years in the State Senate (two four-year terms). Once the fourteen-year limit is reached, legislators are banned from their respective branches for life.

Now, I would like to know what you think.  Please e-mail your views to ElectJeffPerry@aol.com or telephone my office at 508-888-2158.