Arkansas Issue 2: Lifetime term limits on the line

Arkansas is one of six states with lifetime term limits on state lawmakers, but will no longer have them if voters approve Issue 2 on the Nov. 3 ballot.

During the coronavirus pandemic, the campaigns for and against Issue 2 have been low-key with proponents and opponents granting interviews and posting their talking points on social media.

“If there is any campaign behind it, I don’t know about it,” said Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale, who, in the 2019 regular session, proposed the resolution containing the proposed constitutional amendment that’s now Issue 2.

“We don’t have a real robust campaign,” said Tom Steele, chairman of the Arkansas Term Limits committee that opposes Issue 2. He said he has been hauling a 10-foot-tall carved wooden horse across the state in an attempt to drum up opposition.

Arkansas is one of 15 states that limit the number of years or terms that people can serve in the state Legislature. The state has the highest number of years that people can serve — up to 16 — according to the University of Arkansas System Agriculture Division’s Public Policy Center. (The 16-year limit doesn’t include the twoyear terms that some senators serve as a result of the once-a-decade redistricting of legislative boundaries.)

Besides Arkansas, the five other states with lifetime term limits are California, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada and Oklahoma, the Public Policy Center said in its summary on Issue 2.

Nine states with term limits allow former legislators to run again after a break in service: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota, the Public Policy Center said.

In 1992, Arkansas voters approved the state’s first, and stricter, term limits. Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution set term limits for state lawmakers as well as constitutional officers such as governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.

Amendment 73 limited state senators to two four-year terms and state representatives to three two-year terms. Beyond that limit, some senators were able to serve extra two-year terms because of once-a-decade redistricting.

Term Limits Changed

In 2014, voters approved Amendment 94 to the constitution to loosen the term limits and cap the total number of years state lawmakers can serve at 16 years, with senators able to serve longer because of adjustments for redistricting.

Amendment 94, which was pitched by lawmakers, had other changes, too. It shifted the authority for setting salaries for state elected officials from the Legislature to a citizens salary commission; prohibited corporate and union campaign contributions to candidates; and barred lobbyists from providing certain gifts, such as meals and drinks in one-on-one meetings, to lawmakers.

Issue 2, which would be the third adjustments in legislative term limits, was referred to voters by lawmakers meeting in the 2019 regular session. Clark and Rep. Jim Dotson, R-Bentonville, sponsored the proposal.

The proposal, which would become effective Jan. 1, would allow current lawmakers and any legislator elected Nov. 3 to serve under Amendment 94’s term limits, with the difference that once they hit the limit, they would be eligible to hold office again after four years.

Issue 2 would prohibit lawmakers elected after Jan. 1 from serving more than 12 years in a row. However, those lawmakers, once they have served 12 years consecutively, would be able to serve again after taking a four-year break. The 12 years would include two-year Senate terms resulting from the once-a-decade restricting process.

Four-Year Break

Clark said he proposed Issue 2 “because I wanted to do it right and I think it is extremely good law. It sets term limits the way it ought to be once and for all.”

The Lonsdale lawmaker, who has served in the Senate since 2013, said he doesn’t plan to take advantage of Issue 2, if voters adopt it. That is, to serve the rest of the time allowed under Amendment 94, take four years off and then run again.

“There have been very few promises I have made in my life,” he said. “I didn’t even promise not to raise taxes, although I didn’t raise taxes. I had a lot of pressure on me to sign promises. I won’t be coming back. It is not for me. It is not for anybody. It is just to get the law right.”

Allowing lawmakers to serve 12 consecutive years before taking four years off “makes sense,” Clark said.

“It gives you time to get on your feet. I think it takes you four years if you are good to get on your feet and get going. I think it takes some longer,” he said. “Of course, that’s 12 years if you are reelected.

Forgoing lifetime term limits is likely the most controversial part of Issue 2, Clark said. “I insisted on it, so people can send back the person they want if they really want them,” he said.

Opposing View

Steele said voters should cast their ballots against Issue 2 because “this is not term limits. “Voters already have proven that they don’t want these guys here forever,” he said. “These guys have not been willing to accept the will of the people. …

“The truth is, they want to be career politicians. They want to stay there. I am just saying they gut these term limits [because] they want to stay there. They are not interested in good government. I don’t care what they say.”

Steele said that under Issue 2, future lawmakers could serve 10 years and take two years off, and then serve 10 years and then take off two years, and then serve another 10 more years, to serve 30 of 34 years.

In Steele’s view, Issue 2 is an echo of the campaign for Amendment 94. “They are trying to gut term limits,” Steele said. “We think this is another Trojan horse. They are trying to sneak this past people without telling them what they are trying to do.”

Issue 2 wouldn’t change the limits of two four-year terms for the state’s constitutional officers.