Term Termination?

"The longer a source of authority is in control, the longer it is able to accrue power around itself." Thus begins a post by my colleague, Stephen Warne, entitled "The Power of Time." Though lacking any outside sources,  Warne logically argues that if an authority gains to much power, there is a very real potential that the authority will abuse it (through corruption, etc).

Because he is advocating a policy change, we assume that Mr. Warne's audience is policy makers and voters. Therefore, he suggests that there be a term limit for the Texas governor--meaning that a single person can only have a limited number of four-year terms. Warne sites the the federal presidential term limit as an example, since presidents can only be elected twice.

Overall, Mr. Warne's argument makes sense: as the governors time in office goes on, he attains more power and influence (for example, he can appoint around 2000 people to various offices if given enough time). If we change who is in power every few years, it ensures that the state is not driven by the agenda of a single individual. However, the argument would have been significantly strengthened had Warne looked at some of the objections to term limits.

First of all, term limits could constrain voter's choice and possibly force them to vote for a substandard candidate. For instance, what if there is an excellent governor who have served two terms, and must therefore step down, but there is no other candidate that is an acceptable replacement?

Secondly, if a governor knows that they do not have the option of being elected again, they have no reason to fully listen to the opinion of voters. This could potentially, in extreme cases, lead to four years of leadership that is intentionally dismissive of the opinion of the public.

A good way to look at whether a course of action is legitimate is to look at its use in the past. In 2009, The Statesman's editorial board wrote an article entitled "Time for term limits? Let the voters decide" in which they pointed out that (according to the National Governors Association) 37 states place term limits on their governors. Widespread does not necessarily mean advisable, but it shows that there are many poeple who think it is a good idea.

To conclude, both approaches are used in state governments across the nation, so there doesn't seem to be one clearly preferable option.  There are legitimate arguments on both sides, but in the end, I think the decision of term limits should simply be left to Texas voters. Though Warne argues logically and compellingly, going deeper into the topic and the objections against it would have strengthened his claims.