Term limits again.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Term-limit fever swept the country in the 1990s. Twenty-one states capped the length of legislative service. Congressional Republicans made term limits a part of their Contract With America in their victory year of 1994. But the fever may have broken. A key test will be in Oregon, where voters will decide in November whether it's really a good idea to weaken the Legislature, the branch of government that is closest to the people.

Promoters of Oregon's term-limits initiative, which was certified Thursday as having qualified for the general election ballot, have reason to be optimistic. A 1992 term-limits initiative passed with 70 percent of the vote (63 percent in Lane County), but was tossed out by the state Supreme Court in 2002. Oregonians don't like it when the courts or the Legislature invalidate their decisions. Voters often respond by approving a second identical or similar measure by a larger margin, as occurred with the assisted suicide and property-rights initiatives. Supporters are hoping the pattern repeats.

But a lot has happened since the first term-limits vote. Before the court acted, Oregonians gained real-world experience with legislative term limits during two election cycles. Thirty-nine House and Senate members were barred from seeking re-election in 1998 and 2000, out of 150 legislative seats to be filled in those years. Among those 39 were some of Oregon's most talented and experienced leaders. Voters in their districts found that term limits prevented them from electing the candidates of their choice.

The appeal of term limits extends beyond a throw-the-bums-out reflex. Term limits promise to reduce the considerable power of incumbency by capping the amount of seniority that any legislator can accumulate. They also offer an antidote to careerism - lawmakers who know they can serve only a few sessions will focus on their public-policy goals, rather than maneuvering for tenure in a lifetime job.

Yet the power of incumbency attaches more to political parties than to individual legislators. A district that is safe for one Democrat or Republican will be safe for another of the same party - indeed, legislators who bump up against term limits often hand-pick their successors. And term limits don't end careerism, but rather give legislators an incentive to begin angling early for jobs as lobbyists or bureaucrats. By ensuring a faster rate of churn in the House and Senate, term limits result in a shift of power to the executive branch, the courts, state agencies and special interests.

These effects have become clear in the states that have adopted term limits. The Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, concluded in 2002 that "term limits siphoned power from the legislature to the governor's office." Rob Stutzman, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's former chief of staff for communications, was an early supporter of term limits but has changed his mind. Stutzman wrote in the Los Angeles Times that term limits have not eliminated the permanent political class, have created a revolving door in legislative leadership positions and empowered special interests.

These effects may explain why no state has adopted term limits since 2000. The Republican congressional vanguard of 1994 has decided that seniority is not such a great evil after all, and term limits have been quietly dropped from the national agenda. Laws limiting legislative terms were rescinded in Idaho and Utah, and were struck down by the courts in four other states.

Oregon voters will have one further reason to examine this year's term limits proposal closely. It is not a home-grown initiative - nearly all the money behind it comes from U.S. Term Limits, whose Web site lists a New York address. Voters will want to ask themselves why this national organization wants to restrict their choice of candidates. Much as voters may resent their decisions being overturned, this year might not bring a replay of 1992.