Term Limits: Impact On The Operation of New York’s Governing Bodies

During my Don Quixote protest campaign against the state legislature back in 2004, the only member of the media who paid attention to what I was trying to say was Erik Engquist, then of the Courier Life papers, now with Crain’s New York Business.   But he didn’t quite get it right. In one column, he said I was someone who cared deeply about the process of government. I e-mailed him and said that to be honest, like most people I never really cared about or paid attention to the process, I only cared about the results. He wrote back and said while that may be so, unless New York gets a better process, it isn’t going to get any better results.

This is the third and last post in a series on New York City’s double-blind experiment with democracy – a City Council that has term limits, and a state legislature that does not. In the first, I noted that thanks to term limits and public campaign financing there are actual elections for the City Council every eight years, with the would-be members forced to pay attention to the general public, whereas in the state legislature competitive contest elections almost never happen.

https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/term-limits-new-york-citys-double-blind-test-of-democracy/

In the second I examined the personal and professional background of the City Council and state legislature members, and found less difference than I would have supposed, due in part to a surprisingly large amount of recent turnover in the State Assembly, and due in part to the fact that ordinary citizens cannot, or do not, run for office.

https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/term-limits-impact-on-the-characteristics-of-nyc-representatives/

This is post is not about who the members are or how they get there, but what they do when they arrive. With regard to corruption, transparency, and the value they place on the common future, the one interest all of us (other than the most selfish seniors) share.

Term Limits: Impact on the Characteristics of NYC Representatives

As noted in the prior post in this series, New York City is a double-blind test of the effect on term limits on democracy. Since 1993 the city has represented by term-limited members of the New York City Council, and by unlimited members of the New York State Legislature. The dominant political party, other election laws, and the voting population are the same in each case. One result, as identified in the prior post in this series, which should be read first, is more contested elections for City Council relative to the New York State legislature, which seldom has any.

https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/term-limits-new-york-citys-double-blind-test-of-democracy/

In this post I compare selected characteristics of the NYC officeholders in these governing bodies with each other and, in some cases, the population of the city at large. Their race and Hispanic origin. Their sex (male vs. female). Their place of birth. Their age/date of birth/generation. The year when they were first elected to their current position. And their prior job. I don’t usually pay too much attention to New York City’s elected legislative representatives, other than show up every year to vote against the incumbents in my district, so all this information was new to me. Some of it is what I would have expected, but some of it is not.

Term Limits: New York City’s Double-Blind Test of Democracy

In 1989 a new New York City Charter, developed by the equivalent of a state constitutional convention in response to a court decision invalidating the old Board of Estimate, gave city voters the power of initiative and referendum. The power to directly enact local laws that their representatives were unwilling to enact for them. That power has been used only once in the 28 years it has been in force – in 1993, to enact term limits for city officeholders. Since term limits are one thing the people are almost all in favor of, and politicians are almost all opposed to.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/20/nyregion/bid-to-limit-terms-can-be-on-ballot-in-new-york-city.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0

That initiative and referendum has created a double-blind test of democracy in New York City, an experiment that no one knew they were participating in when term limits were enacted. Because today, New York City residents are represented (or not) by two sets of non-federal legislative representatives.   The 51 members of the New York City Council, who have turned over twice or more due to term limits. And its 91 member of the New York State legislature, with 26 State Senators and 65 members of the State Assembly. As we look toward a constitutionally-mandated November referendum on a possible New York State Constitutional Convention, something the entire New York State political class and its funders is opposed to and which basically seems to be hushed up, it is time to examine the results of this experiment. Because based on history, unless the powers that be manage to control the constitutional convention, term limits for state politicians is one provision that it might very well place before the voters for approval, and that those voters would almost certainly approve.