A Big Imposition on Female Legislators

In 1996, the first limits on terms for state legislatures were imposed in the belief that they would make statehouses more "representative" (i.e., give women a chance in the legislature). These limits are currently in effect in about 15 states. Despite the fact that this law is supposed to increase representation, it looks as though the opposite is happening. In a Washington Post article, JoAnn Davidson, who was Ohio's first female House speaker, and now co-chair of the Republican National Committee, said that women elected after voters imposed eight-year term limits are surrendering their seats due to these rules, and, furthmore, "women are harder to recruit. They're harder to convince to run." Dianne Byrum, a former representative who lost her Michigan House seat last year, said, "I was the first woman in Michigan's history to ever lead a caucus, and not only lead that caucus but take it to its best performance in 70 years."

And, that's not all. Trends are showing that states with term limits have decreasing numbers of women in state legislature. In particular, the number of women in Michigan state legislature has dropped from 34 to 29, and in Missouri, from 45 to 38. On the other hand, in states without such term limits have been steadily increasing the number of women in state legislature. In Minnesota, women have increased their numbers from 50 to 70 since 1995, and in Maryland, the percentage of women has increased from 28.7% to 33%.

Will such state term limits squeeze perfectly competent female legislators from their seats? An angry blogger seems to think so. Although the decline of women in state legislature in states with term limits may be, as called in this blog, "an example of the law of unintended consequences," it is something to pay attention to. We need stronger female participation in state legislature; if term limits hinder this, then perhaps it's time to get rid of them.