Matt Huffman (R-Lima) made history this session while illustrating the term limit absurdity.
Huffman served two consecutive, six-year terms as a Senator — the most allowed under the law — and along the way became Senate president.
Huffman knew he couldn’t run for another Senate term, so he ran for a House seat, won, and his colleagues elected him House speaker. Huffman cemented his status as the state’s most powerful politician and — here’s the history — became the first person since the 19th century to hold the Senate president and House speaker posts.
And he may not be done. Huffman can now serve for up to eight consecutive years in the House, at which point …
… he can run for the Senate again.
Huffman’s not doing anything wrong. He’s playing by a set of absurd rules that provide an illusion of limiting terms.
Ohioans overwhelmingly approved term limits in 1992 but the effort hasn’t accomplished what voters hoped, Catherine Turcer, the executive director of Common Cause Ohio, said
“Term limits are certainly not addressing the problem of unaccountable government, problems of corruption (and) aren’t necessarily even fostering new blood in leadership,” she said. “Is there a real benefit?”
Some 16 states have enacted term limits, with Ohio’s “consecutive limits” the most popular. Lawmakers can go back and forth between chambers, just like Huffman, and serve indefinitely.
Six of those 16 states have limits on the total number of years (from 12 to 24) that lawmakers can serve during their lifetime, a far more restrictive practice.
A lifetime limit can do more harm than good. The voting public isn’t fond of octogenarians running and winning elections, but there’s a benefit in retaining institutional knowledge. It will be helpful, for example, to have a deep understanding of the Larry Householder bribery scandal (which most voters how forgotten by now).
The consecutive years have its own issues because it cements a revolving door of entrenched power.
“To use the musical chairs between the chambers as a way to just keep building power and keeping power; yeah, it demonstrates that we don’t have true term limits,” Turcer said.
Ohio’s current useless law needs reform. Huffman has expressed an interest in revisiting term limits and the possibility of reexamining a 16-year term floated years ago. As with any plan, the details would matter. When would the 16 years (or whatever the limit is) start? Would lawmakers then be able to run for other elected office? Could they accept a state appointment from a crony?
Former House Speaker Jason Stephens has a good idea — just get rid of term limits as currently constituted.
“I’m not saying you get rid of term limits altogether but does eight years and being able to switch back and forth, is that really helpful for Ohio? I think that’s a fair question to ask,” Stephens said in remarks to reporters in 2023.
The state has so many issues to deal with — gerrymandering, school funding, infrastructure improvements — that fixing a flaw in term limits falls at the bottom of any priority.
But voters should acknowledge that term limits haven’t done what they were intended.
The state should get rid of term limits because they have no value. As Huffman has shown us, we’re just engaged in a game of political musical chairs.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday.