In the 1990s, Missourians ratified a constitutional amendment limiting someone to eight years of service in the Missouri House and eight years in the Senate.
“People don't like politicians,” said Greg Upchurch, a Manchester attorney who chaired the successful initiative petition campaign to place legislative term limits in the Missouri Constitution. “And this is a way to limit the power of politicians.”
As Upchurch recalled, the result of the 1992 initiative was so overwhelming — the yes side received 75% of the vote — that a reporter called him for comment before the polls closed.
In the 30 years since then, Missourians have sometimes fiercely debated the wisdom or folly of these term limits. Some agree with Upchurch that it promotes electoral competition and provides a check against someone accumulating too much power or influence over decades of legislative service.
“Eight years is plenty of time to make an impact,” said Scott Sifton, who served for eight years in the Missouri Senate and two years in the House. “Rotation is healthy, long-term entrenchment is bad — regardless of party.”
But some current Missouri legislators are trying to change term limits to allow someone to serve for 16 years in one legislative chamber — something that they say would enhance the professionalism and expertise of lawmakers. Others contend legislative term limits unleashed an array of unintended consequences that made legislating more chaotic and less thoughtful.
“Besides the fact that elections can serve as a very effective form of term limits, it hands off more power to leadership, lobbyists and bureaucrats,” said Nick Haynes, who served as a legislative aide in both the Missouri House and Senate. “When legislators are always being thrown through the revolving door, they learn that they have to please those three constituencies in order to get reelected.”
Part of a trend
Missouri is one of 16 states that adopted legislative term limits. University of California-San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser said during a Politically Speaking Hour on St. Louis on the Air interview that almost all of those places have something in common: They allow for constitutional amendments through the initiative petition process.
“Legislators don't like to enact term limits on themselves,” Kousser said. "And so you see it happen in states that have the initiative process.”
Kousser said term limits aren’t a new concept. He pointed out that in ancient Greece, Aristotle lauded the nobility of only being in public service for a short amount of time before doing something else.
But he added that it wasn’t until the early 1990s when states started implementing term limits for their legislators.
“It really disappeared from American political life until 1990,” Kousser said. “This was a year much like 2024 where there's really an anti-incumbent fervor across the country. And that's when the modern term limits movement really gets moving.”
Missouri adopted term limits after a period in state political history when state lawmakers served for a long period of time and accumulated a great deal of power. The most notable example was Bob Griffin, who served as Missouri’s House speaker for roughly 15 years before he resigned amid corruption allegations.
“Nothing is perfect. But all in all, a net positive,” said former Sen. Jason Crowell, who in the early 2010s became one of the powerful senators in Jefferson City. “I remember serving with 40-plus-year members in the House and Senate. No one elected to office is irreplaceable in my opinion. The power of incumbents is too great.”
Time for a change?
Still, others who served after the implementation of term limits believe they could be changed to give more time for legislators to gain expertise and experience in the Capitol.
Gary Nodler served in the state Senate from 2003 through 2011. He said he has mixed feelings about term limits, since without them he likely wouldn’t have had a chance to run for his Joplin-based Senate seat in the first place.
“I think eight years is too short. I think that for a couple of reasons,” Nodler said. “First, it takes a few sessions to get to know how to do the job as well as learn the district. Second, that shrunken period of maximum performance does shift power to staff and lobbyists.”
And while lobbyists and staffers have been able to accumulate power and influence in places without term limits, numerous term limit critics in Missouri contend that the eight-year limit saps away expertise.
“Institutional knowledge is now in the hands of lobbyists,” said Maria Chappelle-Nadal, who served for eight years in the Missouri House and eight in the Senate. “And depending on their particular interests, a legislator may not get the full story behind why something is the way it is. While I support term limits, it remains humbling to watch specific interests evolve based upon what information is available. Institutional knowledge, in my opinion, is how we make the best decisions for the people we serve.”
A number of lawmakers from both parties have put forward ballot items that would allow someone to serve for up to 16 years in either chamber. Rep. Peggy McGaugh’s proposed ballot item passed out of committee without opposition last week.
“There are many, many good people who need to stay around longer, because we need their expertise,” McGaugh said, pointing specifically to the budget, K-12 funding and Medicaid. “So I think if people had the ability to stay longer, they would be better prepared for what's in front of them.”
The Carrollton Republican’s measure also places a four-year limit on how long a House speaker or a Senate president pro tem could serve. That could prevent a lawmaker from holding power for a lengthy period of time as Griffin did.
“Up in my area, there's still people that you know talk about that. And it's a valid point,” McGaugh said. “And can that happen again? I certainly hope not. And so with this provision, it wouldn't, hopefully.”
Tough road ahead?
Other lawmakers have put forward ideas similar to what McGaugh proposed. And none of them has been able to get out of the General Assembly and head to voters.
If one did make it to the ballot, Upchurch, the leader behind the 1992 term limits measure, expects it will face a lot of skepticism among Missourians.
“In 16 years, you can send somebody off to the first grade and go to their graduation from college,” Upchurch said. “That's a long time.”
And even some term limit skeptics aren’t sure that major changes will find favor with Missouri voters.
Former Sen. Delbert Scott served for 18 years in the House and eight in the Senate. Having served in the legislature before and after term limits, he said there are downsides — including increasing the power of lobbyists and incentivizing people to “make a dash for the speakership the day they get elected.”
But the Lowry City resident also said the limited time someone can serve in the legislature can provide important perspective.
“There comes a time to go home as the natural tendency is to think the seat you occupy is yours. In reality the seat belongs to citizens, and you are a temporary holder of the office,” Scott said. “I don’t anticipate any change in the term limit structure. There are plenty of capable citizens to fill legislative seats.”
