Winston-Salem Journal Editorial
North Carolina lawmakers don’t need four-year terms.
Almost half of the members of the N.C. House of Representatives have co-sponsored a bill that asks voters to extend their terms, and those of state senators, from two years to four. A constitutional amendment would be needed.
Bill supporters cite the physical strains and costs associated with running for re-election every two years and say that longer terms would fix both problems.
Extending legislative terms would not fix the money problem, however, and there are better ways to reduce the current strain on legislators. And, even if both claims were correct, the benefits would not be worth the loss in public voice that would result from the change.
Speaking to the News & Record of Greensboro, Rep. Hugh Holliman, D-Davidson and the House majority leader, said that doubling legislators’ terms would cut in half the expenses of running campaigns. While the expense of legislative campaigns is a major concern, Holliman’s calculation is simplistic.
Before the Republican Party became competitive in legislative races during the 1980s, it cost candidates very little to run for the House and Senate. But fierce partisan competition in some districts now runs up the costs because the stakes are so high. If terms were doubled in length, the stakes would grow, as well, and more money would flow into the small percentage of districts where two parties are truly competitive.
Campaigns for four-year terms would almost certainly begin earlier, too. Candidates would begin to raise money well ahead of the election year and, we suspect, not much would change. Legislators would still be raising money constantly, and the wear and tear on them would be changed little, if at all.
There are better ways to reduce both campaign costs and the physical strain on lawmakers. One proposed several years ago in the Senate would move the May primary back to the end of summer, probably in early September. Filing for office could be held in late July.
Thus, legislators would not begin to campaign until late spring or early summer. Shorter campaigns would require less money, and legislators would spend much less time campaigning. September primaries would have the added benefit of pushing legislators to finish their sessions more quickly in election years so they could return home to build support. While a limit on today’s long sessions is a different issue with a variety of justifications, such a limit would greatly reduce the physical strain connected with serving in the legislature.
North Carolina’s biennial legislative elections keep our elected officials close to the public they serve. Four years is too much time between elections, and a system with those terms would be less responsive to voters.
