As a democratic institution, there’s no doubt that the United States of America is a giant. However, for the country’s democracy to continue to consistently serve the best interests of the people, it has to make adequate accommodations for the changes of modern times. To initiate this transition, several local jurisdictions have taken to experimenting with the system. In some regions, they’ve followed the approach of changing the election system, adopting alternative procedures like ranked choice voting or approval voting. For places like North Dakota, the idea is to change how the entire government operates, that is, impose term limits for both the executive and legislative arms of the state. However, while making this decision, it’s critical for North Dakotans to see through the illusion that “change equals positive progress.” This is because, even though it might not be immediately apparent, the existence of no term limits works greatly in favor of the people.

When sampling opinions on the fact that term limits would be on the ballot on November 8, 2022, Kent Morrow of Bismarck said “I think we need some new voices to be heard. I have two daughters and one son, and they have a lot to contribute to society. It shouldn’t be the same people year after year after year.” For the most part, this does sound like a sane argument as it shows that, as a people, we risk stagnation if we don’t let the younger generation secure a platform where they can influence government and policy-making. That said, it’s profoundly inaccurate to assume that imposing term limits is the most efficient way to achieve youth inclusion.

Here are some analogies that might help shed light on this issue.

Let’s assume you have a malignant tumor you need to be excised as quickly as possible. You get to the hospital, you’re going over the paperwork for the procedure, and then get asked the question, who would you like to handle your surgery; a team of doctors and surgeons with a collective experience of 6 decades on the job or a team of doctors and surgeons fresh out of med school?

Or, let’s say you’re working on your laptop and accidentally spill coffee on it. Your local storage has all your important files because you don’t back up to the cloud regularly. Would you entrust the repair of that gadget to a seasoned expert or the new guy?

The truth of the matter is that, in both of the above instances, you’d probably go for the people with more experience – anyone who doesn’t want to take unnecessary chances would. That’s why establishing term limits is just one of many ways we might inadvertently sabotage the progress of our state.

Term limits aren’t as novel or special as some would like people to believe. At the moment, at least 15 states in the U.S. have term limits for their legislators alone. Now, before North Dakota rushes to join that group, it only makes sense to see how term limits are going for those places, doesn’t it?

Well, as a matter of fact, you should know that, in terms of infrastructure, North Dakota is far better than many, if not all of these states. If that’s not good enough, consider this: the total number of the homeless population on average in California and Florida (two of the most prominent states that observe term limits) is 161,548, and 27,487 respectively. North Dakota’s homeless population is capped at roughly 541 on any given day. Let’s take a quick look at the violent crime rate as well. According to a study done in 2020, the number of incidence counts of violent crimes in California and Florida stood at 174,026 and 83,368. North Dakota had an incidence rate of 2,518 in the same year.

Now, I could go on and on but one thing should be abundantly clear by now; term limits will not necessarily improve life as we know it here in ND. If anything, there’s the very real possibility that it’s because the state has managed to retain experienced hands at the helm of affairs that we haven’t descended into the chaos that these other regions are experiencing.

As Senator Rich Wardner of Dickinson aptly put it, “If I had only served eight years, I would never have been comfortable, never have the expertise to do what we called the surge funding for out west. Our infrastructure was falling apart. We got a billion dollars, and we got it taken care of. That takes someone that’s been around for a while.”

There is no doubt that there are bad governors, senators, and representatives. But there is an almost equal amount of good ones too. Now, while term limits might seem like a very convenient way of getting the bad guys out of office, keep in mind that, in doing so, it’ll also ensure that the state never truly enjoys all the benefits that the good ones have to offer too. As such, term limits effectively take power away from the people. That isn’t a worthwhile tradeoff on any day.

Now, for the bitter truth that no one wants to hear; bad leaders shouldn’t be allowed to stay in office, that is true. But, shooting yourself in the leg just to get them out of the way is not the solution.

Rather, channeling the true power of your vote to make a difference will almost certainly prove more productive. The people might not be able to stop a leader they don’t want from getting their name on the ballot but they can certainly ensure that this individual doesn’t get where he wants to go. Just don’t vote for him and endorse whichever option you feel is better. Subverting democracy in this regard can’t possibly yield good fruits.

So, as to whether the state of North Dakota should subject its governor and state legislators to term limits, the answer to that is a vehement, “No!”

Implementing term limits won’t serve democracy, it’ll only handicap voters.