- Stagnation of leadership leads to entrenchment of power and limitation of new ideas
- North Carolina recently gained notoriety for the longevity of its leadership positions, while other states are seeing many of their long-term leaders retiring
- North Carolina has granted traditionally executive powers to its legislature, and restricting these powers would be in line with its history
This is the fourth of a four-part series covering our findings in “Reforming North Carolina’s General Assembly.” Part One covered legislative pay, Part Two dealt with session limits, and Part Three dealt with increasing transparency.
During the 2023–24 legislative session, North Carolina’s legislative leadership garnered two new titles for itself: Tim Moore became the longest-serving House speaker in North Carolina history, and Phil Berger became the longest-serving current legislative leader in the country after beginning his 14th year as Senate president pro tempore.
Throughout the country, many long-term legislative leaders have stepped down, and with new leadership, term limits for these positions are also being imposed through various means. Allowing a freer leadership rotation will enable the General Assembly to consider new ideas better and make old rivalries and conflicts less likely to derail policy considerations. The General Assembly should implement term limits for the chief leadership position in each chamber.
Why Implement Term Limits for Leadership?
Some argue that term limits are necessary because the entrenchment of elected officials has led to a lack of new ideas, leadership roles based on seniority, and delayed action on critical issues until after an election cycle, which has caused more harm than good. In theory, they argue, the best way to resolve these issues is a forced rotation of elected officials.
Others argue against fully implementing term limits, however, on the grounds that doing so would lead to losing institutional knowledge and surrendering power to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists.
The compromise to this is selective term limits for those in leadership roles, rather than general term limits.
Unlike general term limits, leadership term limits do not restrict voters’ choices or bar individuals from holding office. They would bar an elected legislator only from retaining the highest chamber position. This would prevent power from stagnating under longstanding leadership without limiting voters’ choices.
In a Sept. 2023 Civitas Poll (now Carolina Journal Poll), when likely voters were questioned on the implementation of leadership term limits, 85 percent supported some kind of limit.
Sen. Berger is the most senior member of the current state Senate leadership in the United States, and his Democratic predecessor, Marc Basnight, led the chamber for 18 years. The state House and Senate are both notorious for having longstanding legislative leadership, but with a new speaker of the House now taking the reins, North Carolina should adopt term limits for legislative leaders going forward.
The limitation on leadership should be implemented via statute and prevent the House and Senate leaders from serving in those roles for more than eight years. An eight-year term limit would mirror the term limits placed on the governor and lieutenant governor. The idea of leadership term limits is not only in line with how other states with long-serving members have been moving but also aligns with North Carolina’s history.
How Do Other States Implement Leadership Term Limits?
A growing number of states have implemented term limits specifically for legislative leaders, independent of any term limits for legislators in general. Many states that imposed these limits did so after leaders who had served for decades left office.
For example, in 2021, Illinois adopted a provision limiting the tenure of any speaker of the House to five consecutive two-year terms after long-serving member Michael Madigan served 19 terms as speaker. Of those 19 terms, 12 were consecutive.
Illinois is not unique in having a single individual presiding over a legislative chamber for more than three decades. South Carolina Speaker Solomon Blatt, Maryland Senate Pres. Mike Miller, and Lt. Gov. John Wilder of Tennessee each led their respective legislative chamber for more than 30 years. Since the 2022 election, however, a massive turnover has occurred in the top leadership roles across all U.S. territories and state legislatures, with 45 of the 108 chambers under new leadership. This turnover led to Berger becoming the longest-serving current legislative leader in 2023.
The phenomenon of longstanding legislative leaders stepping down has reduced the combined total years of service of the longest-serving legislative leaders by more than 14 years since 2021.
Currently, 19 legislative chambers across 14 states have leadership term limits. While not all of the states that saw leadership changes have yet to implement leadership term limits, seven legislative chambers have created new policies over the last decade to limit how many terms in a leadership role someone may serve.
Only Maine imposes leadership term limits by statute. Most of the rest impose limits by tradition or chamber rule, which can easily be changed if a powerful leader wants to keep the position. One chamber, the Oklahoma House, imposes leadership term limits by Republican Party caucus rule, meaning there is no limit if Democrats take control.
Most states with term limits for leadership impose them through custom or tradition, which means that these restrictions can simply be ignored. as was the case with Kansas in 2021 when Speaker Ron Ryckman sought a third term. While Although statutes can be modified, it is more difficult to do so than to amend chamber rules or traditions.
In states that implement term limits for legislative leaders, the range can be anywhere from two to 10 years. Most states implement a one-term, two-year appointment to the leadership position. The only state to impose an eight-year limit is Kansas, which restricts its leadership to two four-year terms.
Historical Support for Leadership Term Limits in the U.S. and North Carolina
The idea of term limits was discussed and debated even in colonial days. The Articles of Confederation imposed term limits for members of Congress, preventing any person from serving more than three years within any six-year time period.
The Anti-Federalists were concerned that a lack of term limits would permit a permanent political class that lived in tandem with, but separate from, the people. Term limits were not ultimately included in the Constitution because the idea of such entrenched power did not seem possible with two-year terms and the culture of voluntary rotation. Today, the Anti-Federalists’ concerns can speak not only to national politics but also against the entrenchment of power in the highest positions of state legislatures.
Term limits for elected officials in North Carolina also date back to the 1700s. The state implemented term limits for governor (then an appointed position) in its original constitution, prohibiting any individual from serving more than three years in any six-year period.
Powers typically associated with executive authority were given exclusively to the legislature. Although the governor’s office has increased in its authority over the years, what we typically think of as executive powers (such as appointment authority) is still held in part by the legislature. Some appointments must be passed through statutes, but legislative leaders can also appoint individuals directly.
North Carolina’s preference for a weak governor stems from “harsh treatment that the state suffered under British royal governors during the colonial era.” Favoring legislative over executive authority is thus engrained in North Carolina’s history. Even today, North Carolina has the weakest governor of all 50 states.
The governor’s appointment power is limited by a two-term restriction, but no such restriction limits the appointment powers of the legislature. This goes against North Carolina’s founding philosophy. Allowing legislative leaders to hold executive-style appointment powers with no limitations on how long people may hold those offices gives those individuals great sway over the state.
Implementing a term limit of eight years for legislative leadership positions would bring North Carolina in line with other states’ modern limitations on such positions and conform with its own limits on gubernatorial powers. A limitation on such power would align with the Anti-Federalists’ ideas and those of North Carolina’s constitutional framers.
