Measures would extend term limits, define one-half term

The Legislature’s Executive Board heard testimony Feb. 1 on two proposed constitutional changes that would be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot.

LR358CA, introduced by Holdrege Sen. Tom Carlson, would extend the current limit of two consecutive four-year terms for state senators to three consecutive four-year terms.

Since term limits were enacted in 2000, Carlson said, there has been a large turnover of state senators. Term limits can be a good thing, he said, but a lack of experience could cause legislators to become too reliant on the executive branch and lobbyists for information.

“I am convinced that the people of Nebraska would be better served by allowing senators to serve three consecutive terms,” Carlson said.

Ron Sedlacek, representing the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of the resolution.

“[The chamber] believes term limits should be repealed,” Sedlacek said. “But we would support this [measure] because a longer limit is a step in the right direction.”

No opposing testimony was given.

LR372CA, introduced by Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton, would define “one-half of a term” as service in the Legislature from the first day of a 90-day session until the first day of the next 90-day session.

Fulton was appointed to serve in the Legislature in 2007 to replace Sen. Mike Foley halfway through Foley’s term. After receiving two different interpretations of “one-half of a term” from the secretary of state and the state attorney general’s office, Fulton said he was unsure whether he could serve another term in the Legislature.

“My experience has informed me of the need to provide clarity for Nebraskans going forward,” Fulton said.

Assistant Attorney General Dale Comer testified in support of the bill, saying one calculation had defined the length of term based on calendar years and the other calculation was based on the start date of one legislative session to another.

“Ultimately, defining this in the constitution resolves the problem and it will not have to be litigated down the road,” he said.

No opposing testimony was given on LR372CA and the board took no immediate action on either proposal.