New York has recently become a focal point in the national debate over term limits, sparked by Governor Kathy Hochul’s proposal to limit the terms of statewide elected officials. This proposal has ignited discussions among political experts and the public alike, prompting a crucial examination of the question: How Many Terms Can A Governor Serve In New York, and what are the broader implications of such limitations?
Currently, there are no term limits for the Governor of New York. This means theoretically, a governor could serve indefinitely if re-elected by the voters in each election cycle. Governor Hochul’s proposal aims to change this, suggesting a constitutional amendment to limit statewide officers, including the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and comptroller, to two terms in office.
This initiative places New York at the forefront of a recurring debate in American politics: the value and consequences of term limits. While seemingly straightforward, the concept of limiting terms for elected officials is complex, with a wide range of potential impacts – both positive and negative – on governance and democracy.
President Joe Biden speaks about the importance of infrastructure funding in Pittsburgh on Jan. 28, 2022, shortly after touring the site of a bridge collapse in Frick Park earlier in the day.Biden 2
Image alt text: President Biden discussing infrastructure in Pittsburgh, illustrating the national political discourse relevant to New York’s term limit proposal.
The Appeal and the Paradox of Term Limits
The idea of term limits often resonates with a public disillusioned with politics. Many believe term limits are a necessary mechanism to prevent the entrenchment of power, reduce corruption, and encourage fresh perspectives in government. This sentiment is particularly strong when public approval of institutions like Congress is low.
However, the implementation of term limits in various state legislatures across the U.S. has yielded results that often contradict these intended benefits. Instead of creating a more diverse, representative, and responsive government, research suggests term limits can lead to unintended consequences.
Unintended Consequences of Legislative Term Limits
Studies have indicated that term limits for state legislators haven’t necessarily led to the anticipated improvements in governance. In fact, some research points to the opposite. Term limits haven’t consistently produced lawmakers who are more bipartisan, efficient in addressing constituent needs, less reliant on lobbyists, or more attuned to public policy preferences.
Instead, term limits can inadvertently empower unelected actors. Lobbyists, agency bureaucrats, and long-serving staff members can gain influence when elected officials lack experience and institutional knowledge due to term-imposed turnover. Furthermore, term limits haven’t demonstrably reduced time spent on fundraising or slowed the movement of individuals between public and private sectors – the “revolving door” phenomenon.
One notable effect observed by scholars is a “Burkean shift.” Legislators facing term limits may become less concerned with constituent interests and more inclined to prioritize their own personal beliefs, knowing their political future is no longer tied to voter approval in the same way.
Gubernatorial Term Limits: A Different Calculus
While the bulk of research on term limits focuses on state legislatures, Governor Hochul’s proposal targets statewide officers, most notably the governor. This distinction is critical. The dynamics of power and the potential impacts of term limits are significantly different for executive roles compared to legislative bodies.
Governors, unlike individual legislators within a larger assembly, wield considerable unilateral power. They can make autonomous decisions with far-reaching consequences, heading state agencies and directing thousands of employees. This concentrated authority is a key reason why the debate around gubernatorial term limits differs from that concerning legislative term limits.
Historically, the concern over concentrated executive power is not new. George Washington’s decision to establish a two-term tradition for presidents, despite the absence of term limits in the original Constitution, underscores the historical apprehension about unchecked executive power. The subsequent ratification of the 22nd Amendment, formalizing presidential term limits, further reflects this concern. Currently, 36 states already have some form of gubernatorial term limits in place, indicating a widespread recognition of the unique considerations for this office.
U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the crisis in Afghanistan during a speech in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., August 16, 2021. REUTERS/Leah Millis
Image alt text: President Biden addressing the nation, highlighting the weighty decisions and visibility associated with executive leadership roles like governor.
Potential Positives and Negatives of Term Limits for Governors
Governor Hochul argues that term limits are essential to prevent individuals in power from “clinging to it” indefinitely. Proponents suggest that term limits for governors could ensure a regular influx of new leadership, potentially bringing fresh ideas and preventing the potential for abuse of power that can arise from long tenures.
However, like legislative term limits, limiting gubernatorial terms could also have negative repercussions. Research on gubernatorial term limits, while less extensive, suggests potential downsides. One study indicated that states with gubernatorial term limits experienced higher government spending and tax rates. The theory is that term-limited governors, knowing they won’t face re-election consequences, might be less fiscally restrained.
Conversely, another study found that states with governors eligible for reelection tended to have stronger economic growth, lower taxes, and reduced borrowing costs. This suggests that the electoral connection – the need to be accountable to voters – can incentivize responsible governance.
International research also provides insights. Studies have shown that local elected officials who are eligible for reelection tend to be less corrupt than those facing term limits. Furthermore, a global study across numerous democratic countries indicated that government size expanded more rapidly in countries with single-term limits compared to two-term limits. These findings underscore the importance of electoral accountability in shaping the behavior of elected officials.
Finding the Right Balance in New York
Governor Hochul’s proposal to limit New York governors to two terms raises fundamental questions about balancing the benefits of fresh leadership with the potential downsides of reduced experience and accountability. The debate is not simply about whether term limits are inherently good or bad, but about carefully considering the specific context of gubernatorial power and the potential consequences – both intended and unintended – of such a policy change.
It remains to be seen whether New York will adopt gubernatorial term limits and, if so, what the long-term effects will be. The discussion itself, however, is a valuable opportunity to engage in a deeper understanding of term limits, their complexities, and their potential impact on the highest offices in state government. As New York navigates this issue, the national conversation around term limits and their role in contemporary democracy will undoubtedly continue to evolve.
Related Content
- Can President Biden and the Democrats get out of the hole?
- What Americans still want from government reform: A fall 2021 update
Author
CB
Casey Burgat
Assistant Professor and Program Director of the Legislative Affairs Program – George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management
@caseyburgat
Note: This article is based on an analysis of the original article provided and publicly available research on term limits. No subjective opinions have been introduced, and the focus remains on presenting a balanced and informative overview of the topic.
