Similar to the situation today, confidence in American political institutions was flagging roughly 20 years ago. Our economy was undergoing a recession, and there appeared to be a widening disconnect between our elected officials and the citizenry. The George H.W. Bush administration appeared tone deaf to the pocketbook concerns of many Americans, and Congress was mired in the House banking scandal that further fueled the case for reform. Populist candidates and causes found a very receptive landscape.
One of those causes was that of term limitation. I played a small role in that movement, conducting opinion research on behalf of the pro-term-limits campaign in Michigan in 1992. At the time, I believed that greater rotation in office would remove unresponsive — yet well-funded and entrenched — incumbents from their perches and help usher in a new, more democratic (small d) era of governance.
Of course, I was considerably younger in those days; I had not fully appreciated that the promise of term limits might be greater than that which could be delivered in a government consisting of non-angels. I did not foresee the degree to which new policymakers, rotating in and out of office with fewer opportunities to develop institutional expertise and wisdom, would rely upon non-elected advisors (such as lobbyists and long-serving staffers and bureaucrats) to help shape legislation, thus empowering groups and individuals not directly accountable to the governed. In short, term limitation in reality also fosters anti-democratic tendencies in practice.
Turning to the present, with governmental institutions increasingly being seen as unresponsive to the needs of our populace, it is in the best interests of elected officials to support remedies that make them as accountable to the governed as possible. In Maryland in 2011, this does not mean term limits but something far less radical and significantly more democratic: shorter terms of office for members of the General Assembly's House of Delegates.
In more than 40 states, the members of the lower house of the state legislature serve two-year terms. This helps bring them to the table for a formal job interview with their employers, the electorate, twice as often as is presently the case in Maryland. This more-frequent check by the people on their elected officials helps promote the need for state legislators to remain accessible to, and in tune with the needs of, their constituents.
This remedy is not unfamiliar to Maryland. For more than half of the 19th century and for the early part of the 20th century, members of the House of Delegates were elected for two-year terms. Prior to that, members served for one-year terms.
State legislatures, particularly in states with a part-time legislature such as Maryland, are designed to promote the election of citizen-legislators by members of their local communities. Should not these legislators be compelled to stand for election at least as often as members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who represent far larger districts in terms of population and geographic size? Why should one of the levels of government so close to the people be so far removed from the ballot box?
To this end, and in the interest of greater accountability, I believe it is time for Maryland's Constitution to be amended to provide for two-year terms for the House of Delegates. If a delegate is representing constituents well, he or she will likely be returned to represent his or her district for another term. If the delegate is not aligned with the will of the electorate, then that district should have the opportunity to vote that legislator out of office rather than endure such an unresponsive presence for four long years, the same term length as an American president (as is the case now).
With so many candidates for office extolling the virtues of personal accountability, this presents a wonderful opportunity for elected officials to take a stand and say, "Yes, let the people vote on my performance every two years. Why make them wait?" After all, accountability delayed is accountability denied.
Jason Booms is the president and CEO of Booms Research & Consulting Inc., an opinion research and strategic communications consultancy based in Columbia. His email is jbooms@boomsresearch.com.