Yes on Issue No. 3 (D.E. Ray Feedback)

TO THE EDITOR:

I’m writing in response to the editorial in the Sept. 22 edition of Arkansas Business headlined “No on Issue No. 3.”

That editorial stated that Issue No. 3 is not about ethics reforms and that it is a gambit to trick voters into expanding term limits. It also harped on the fact that term limits passed with 60 percent of the vote in 1992 and decried the fact that the issue states that it will be “setting term limits.” All of that is incredibly disingenuous.

The ethics portion of the issue is very important and will help break the hold that lobbyists have had over legislators since term limits made individual legislators far weaker against the hordes of lobbyists that flock to the Capitol every day. Lobbyists are able to hone their craft for years, decades — and with no time limit. Legislators are expected to leave the job just as they are getting the hang of it. Limiting the influence that lobbyists can exert on legislators is the only way to ensure that the voice of the people is not drowned out by moneyed interests.

As for “extending” term limits: The current term limits mean that a person can serve in the Legislature for 14 years total. Unless it is 16 years because of a special term for redistricting, which at least a third of state senators get during their time. Or portions of a term for a special election. Or another special term because of redistricting after having served a portion of a term from a special election. The rules for term limits are currently very convoluted, with many special exceptions. A legislator could play the convolutions of those rules (and one has) until he is allowed to serve nearly 20 years.

The “extension” merely simplifies these overly complex rules to say that any person can serve up to 16 years. Period.

If the current term limits rules being passed by 60 percent of the vote 20 years ago is significant, think of how significant it will be if they are made simpler, easier to understand and more fair by 60 percent of the vote this year. We are not beholden to the past simply because it is past. If a better idea comes along, we can choose it rather than being chained to the decisions of our grandparents.

As for the argument that the issue, by including the phrase “setting term limits,” is disingenuous, that argument is disingenuous itself. Your readers are educated enough to know that when a bill comes through to alter taxes, either raising or lowering, it says that it is a bill “to establish a tax.” The use of the phrase “setting term limits” in a proposal to alter term limits in any way is a similar bit of legal jargon, required if we were actually extending them, shortening them or, as in this case, simplifying them. It is a legal requirement and not a dodge — and you know it very well. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

This ballot issue, at its core, is about whether or not legislators will be able to resist the temptations of lobbyists. If you want to continue seeing lobbyists decide the activities of the state government, vote against it. If you want to see legislators more independent from lobbyist influence, vote for it.

D.E. Ray
Nashville (Howard County)