Tenure and Turnover of Legislative Personnel

Abstract

TI3IS volume is founded upon an assumption that the effective functioning of the state legislature is important to American public welfare. It is my own assumption that a state legislature will not function effectively unless a substantial number of its members have acquired several sessions of experience in the lawmaking process. This article is designed to show to what extent the contemporary state legislature is an experienced or inexperienced assemblage and to offer some explanation of why transiency of membership is so common. My assumption as to the value of continued legislative service, I have learned from frequent conversations, is by no means universally shared; therefore these opening paragraphs arguing in justification of an effort to measure legislative tenure and to inquire into the causes of its brevity 1 IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED SERVICE One frequently meets the assertion that the continuance of legislators in their positions over a period of years is positively undesirable, because it can be accomplished only through the negation of the principle that the personnel of the legislature should respond to the changing wants of the electorate-that currents of opinion shift with such frequency that the legislator will become spokesman for a repudiated program before he can become a veteran at lawmaking.The reply to this is that life is not quite like that. Popular will rarely if ever shifts ground with such suddenness as would necessitate the complete purging of a legislative body within the course of a decade. Each new deal has its John-the-Baptists who cried out from the wilderness of their minority position; they should occupy prominent positions in the legislature which frames the new order. Not all of a generation bring meat worthy of repentance; the unbelievers are entitled, according to current American theory, to representation. And their representation will be more effective if some of the stalwarts who defended the old order in legislative halls are present to abhor and denounce when new legislation is being enacted.Even in the most revolutionary times there is, therefore, room in the legislature for men who have acquired substantial lawmaking experience. And of course, at times when the political scene is relatively undisturbed by currents of opinion, a number of individuals may prove acceptable throughout a period of years.It is also said, in refutation of my assumption, that lawmaking is a problem for amateurs, and that the product, statutes, is not rendered more generally acceptable because lawmakers * Students employed on Federal funds were utilized in the collection of the data on which this study is based. Devices for checking the accuracy of data were used which are believed to have reduced error to a minimum. Funds granted from the Graduate Research Fund of the University of Illinois made possible the use of the punch-card, machine-tabulating process.

Time, Term Limits, and Turnover: Trends in Membership Stability in U.S. State Legislatures

“…There are a number of informative studies of turnover in a single state, such as Stonecash's (1993) analysis of New York and Clucas's (2003) work on California. And there are some well-known studies of turnover using data from a handful of states, starting with the oft-cited study by Hyneman (1938) of ten states from 1925 to 1935, Ray's threestate (1974) and eight-state (1976) studies, and Jewell's (1982 ninestate analysis. Virtually all of these studies examine turnover longitudinally-that is, they report what happened to the turnover rates over time.…”

“…According to some observers, turnover in state legislatures was so high as to preclude consistent, thoughtful decision making. In some chambers, Charles Hyneman (1938) found, more than half of the members were new in each biennium. By midcentury, legislative turnover had begun to decline.…”

The Legislative Committee Game: A Comparative Analysis of Fifty States, by Wayne L. Francis

“…He demonstrates that at the turn of the century the turnover rates in these three states were between 60 and 80 percent. By the 1930s the turnover rate in ten state houses was estimated at slightly less than 40 percent (Hyneman, 1938), but by the 1960s estimates were still in ex cess of 35 percent (Rosenthal, 1974b). In most recent years , the rates have declined further, and as pointed out by Wiggins and Bernick (1977), the problem of turnover is no longer so apparent.…”

The New York State Legislature: A Developmental Perspective: 1777-1846

“…In New Jersey, for example, 41.5% of those who sat in the legislature between 1829 and 1844 served for only one year, and 38.5% served only two years (Levine, 1977: 76). In the period of 1925-1935, the percentage of first-term members in New York assembly was 17.7, while 31% had served between five and ten terms (Hyneman, 1938). Turnover in Congress never reached the proportions it did in state legislatures, but Polsby (1968: 168) has documented a substantial increase in the rate of turnover in the House of Representatives at midcentury.…”