Here’s an idea that both conservatives and liberals can embrace: Extend the terms for the Maine Senate from two to four years.

This could simultaneously save money and make it easier for the Legislature to create laws that take the long-term view. It could also strengthen trust in government by showing citizens that the Legislature can economize.

The two separate houses of the Legislature are supposed to symbolize two distinct types of representation. In theory, the House of Representatives expresses the short-term impulses of the electorate. Maine has 151 representatives. They represent 8,443 people per district and are up for re-election every two years. They can serve a total of four consecutive terms, for a total of eight years before they are term-limited.

A surfing analogy is appropriate to describe their role: If a political wave starts to develop, representatives can ride it until the wave crests. Since small districts allow representatives to meet with constituents easily, they can effortlessly absorb the message that voters are trying to send.

A Senate is supposed to be different. Senators represent more people per district (36,426) and their districts are usually geographically larger than House districts. Maine has 35 senators who are also up for re-election every two years. They also can serve a total of four consecutive terms, for a total of eight years before they are term-limited.

Philosophically, the most critical difference from the House is that senators are supposed take the longer view of proposed legislation. They are explicitly less democratic and more elitist.

At the national Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison put forth his view that senators required stability, coolness and wisdom. In contrast, the rash decisions of a purely democratic House were to be feared.

In Maine, we have always set equal terms for the House and Senate. There were one-year terms until 1883, when the Legislature went to two-year terms. There have been proposals in the past to lengthen both House and Senate terms (one as recently as 1991), but all have failed.

I believe that a major reason why Maine has not changed the length of senatorial terms is our political culture. Maine has a strong commitment to equality. If senators ran for office every four years, they could be characterized as borderline aristocratic. This characterization might not only come from the general public, but also from the House of Representatives.

I suspect that the House would be the biggest obstacle to change. Since a constitutional amendment would be required, it might be difficult for two-thirds of House members to voluntarily lengthen Senate terms without simultaneously extending their own.

Changing the terms would create some institutional challenges. For example, since Maine uses joint legislative committees, the senators on these committees could dominate the proceedings by virtue of their longevity and experience. Term limits would also have to be either revised or abolished altogether.

While any change would bring about complications, there are important potential benefits:

• The Legislature would gain power by having more experienced senators writing and reviewing legislation. Most importantly, the biennial battle of the budget could be fought on more level territory, vis-à-vis the executive branch. Senators in the third and fourth years of their term would know the arcane rules of legislative procedure better, be able to more effectively ask state agencies critical oversight questions and know how to unmask the “hidden” money that all governors possess. Only experience and time make this possible.

• The state could contemporaneously save money and strengthen the Clean Elections Act. This act is very popular with state political candidates. In 2004, 78 percent of them accepted public money for campaigning. Ethically, the law is something every Mainer should be proud of. Financially, it has been a “terrible success.” The fund that runs the law needs additional cash so that there will be enough money set aside to fund the expected number of candidates in 2006. By having fewer Senate elections in the future, the state would set in motion a cost-saving dynamic that might appeal to fiscal conservatives. Even though it would not save a dime now, it could show citizens that state government is making a serious, if modest, attempt to curb expenses.

We need more long-term thinking in the state legislature. Lengthening senatorial terms would provide a structure in which that type of decision-making might occur. We needn’t fear this would make our Legislature a professionalized, full-time body. Our political culture, small population and fiscal reality would never allow that to happen. But longer senatorial terms could produce better public policy.

Karl Trautman is the chairperson of the Department of Social Sciences at Central Maine Community College. He was a policy analyst with the Michigan Legislature from 1997 to 2001.

Copy the Story Link