Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States.

At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Since Blair won, I’ve seen an interesting mix of reactions, ranging from impressed to disgusted. I want to address those, but first I feel the need to point out that I probably disagree with Blair on every fundamental issue. From what I’ve seen of her platform, she is extremely fiscally conservative, in favor of Voter ID laws, pro-life, pro-gun, and opposed to gay marriage. I don’t think I agree with her on anything, but that does not stop me from being proud and impressed by this young woman.

The idea of democracy is that we choose who best represents us. If I were a voter in Blair’s district, I probably wouldn’t have voted for her because she does not represent me. But it’s hard to fault those who did. She may be young and naive, I don’t know her. But I have a hard time buying that her age automatically disqualifies her from being representative of the people of her district.

She’s legally an adult. Barely, but she is. Which means that she could just as easily be at war, fighting for this nation. We have multiple members of Congress who are in their early thirties; the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, 30-year-old Congresswoman-elect Elise Stefanik, just won on Tuesday in upstate New York. I think it’s difficult to make a cut-off that prescribes how young is too young. Would I have been comfortable representing people at 18? No, probably not. But that’s not to say that there’s a magical day when everyone becomes mature enough to be in that kind of position.

She may be young, and who knows, she could be pretty naive. There’s also something to be said for the fact that her father is a State Senator and he’s probably had a strong influence on her.

Does that make her less qualified than someone old and cynical? God knows that our normal bevy of older, male politicians certainly have many faults. While I don’t agree with Blair’s perspective, it’s almost certainly going to be unique. And who’s to say that it won’t be representative of those who voted to elect her. I can’t imagine that she’s automatically under-qualified for office simply because of her age, when we consistently have elected officials who have affairs, are indicted for various kinds of fraud, and the like. With regard to the fact that she comes from a political family…well that’s not a particularly original criticism either. While she might not be the most qualified candidate, it’s her prerogative to run, and if the voters truly feel that she is a good representation of their beliefs, I don’t see how it’s any different than any other elected official.

I applaud Blair’s tenacity, and while I certainly would not have voted for her, that’s purely because of her politics. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, fewer than five percent of state legislators are under 30; and women in general make up just 24 percent of state legislators. If for no other reason than the fact that Blair has the opportunity to be an excellent role model, and proof that both women and young people have a rightful place being represented in our government, I applaud her.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her appeared first on Law Street.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people complaining about ‘career politicians’. Many people feel that term limits can help fight against this trend by allowing new people to run for office. However, recently there has been talk of getting rid of term limits.

Governor LePage of Maine has brought the issue of term limits into the spotlight again. In a speech made on March 20, 2014, LePage stated that he wants to do away with the term limits imposed on Maine’s state legislators. He explained that they create an influx of “young people with firm agendas” and make legislators feel rushed. The Governor called for an overhaul of the legislation from 1993 that prohibited legislators from serving in office for more than four two-year terms. While LePage made these comments perhaps without any solid argument, the issue remains important. Term limits have come up in many political debates, and 15 states currently have some kind of term limit laws on the books.

So what are some real arguments for and against term limits, and are they valid?

1.Term Limits Give More Power to Lobbyists.

It has been argued that creating term limits for legislators only allows lobbyists to gain more influence over those in office. Because term limits can cause a loss of experienced legislators who have lived out their terms in office, there will be a greater number of newer and younger members of state assemblies and senates. Having less political experience, newer members of state legislatures could turn to lobbyists for expertise on certain issues, giving non-elected individuals power over the actions of legislators.

This argument does have some support; research by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that in their 2006 study, imposing term limits on state lawmakers did increase the influence of lobbyists and other non-elected individuals.

However, the same study also found that term limits also worked against the efforts of lobbyists. Term limits created shorter relationships between legislators and lobbyists. Additionally, the report noted that new legislators bound by term limits tended to be more suspicious of lobbyists. So, really it’s a mix bag theory. 

2. Term Limits Increase Diversity

Some believe that term limits are able to increase diversity among membership in state legislatures. It is known that incumbents have an extremely high likelihood of reelection, and this can preclude legislatures from increasing the number of women and minorities in public office. Instituting term limits, it is believed, can mitigate this problem by opening up more seats for candidates of different genders, ethnicities and backgrounds.

Despite this belief, it has not been proven that term limits are integral in increasing the diversity of state legislators. The 2006 National Conference of State Legislatures found no significant increase in diversity of state legislatures that had instituted term limits. While term limits may have opened up more seats in state houses and senates, the amount of diversity in state legislatures also depends upon the candidates running for office and their opportunities, which can affect who runs for and wins seats.

3. Term Limits Prevent Inefficiencies Like Big Spending.

Another myth is without them, there will inevitably be more inefficiencies in government like increased spending. The argument is that with term limits, the greater amount of newer legislators will have less tenure and therefore vote to reduce spending. This view was made popular in the 1990s when there was growing support for term limits. 

However, empirical evidence suggests there isn’t a real correlation between term limits and government spending. A study that compared the fiscal policies of the states showed that there were little differences in spending between the fourteen states with term limits and the rest of the states without term limits. The same study also found that states that repealed term limits did not significantly increase spending. Therefore, while theories suggest term limits may allow for a decrease in government spending, this hypothesis has not been proven true in practice.

So if arguments for and against term limits haven’t been validated, what’s the point?

If it has not been proven that the existence of term limits make a serious impact on the workings of state legislatures, should we continue to waste time worrying about whether or not to have term limits? I would argue that we shouldn’t.

In a day and age when so many districts are gerrymandered along party lines, does it really matter whether there is a new or old face representing a primarily Republican or Democrat district? And whether or not term limits are enacted into law or done away with, there hasn’t been any evidence suggesting that the amount of time a person can serve in a legislature truly makes an impact on how legislatures function. It’s understandable that people desire their representatives to be more accountable to citizens, but the implementation or deletion of term limits probably won’t fix that problem. Let’s stop worrying about term limits and focus greater attention on methods to increase the accountability of whomever sits in public office, whether they can continue to run for that office or not.

[Bangor Daily News] [Washington Post] [Legislative Quarterly]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Again, with Term Limits: Debunking 3 Myths in the Media appeared first on Law Street.

Congress by The Sunlight Foundation

The Sunlight Foundation is an educational organization with the mission of increasing transparency in the U.S. government and shining light on the information that, though readily available to the public, is over overlooked.

The Sunlight Foundation’s newest release, Congress for iPhone and Android, is a user-friendly law and bill tracker that allows users to view bills in their real-time process. Congress offers all of its features for free, with the mission of educating and informing the public about governmental activities that often do not receive enough attention.

Features:

• Track and view bills as they happen
• View legislator profiles in the house and senate
• Connect with legislators through Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and their respective governmental websites
• View how legislators have voted on bills and see what they have sponsored
• Follow bills to receive activity updates as they happen

You may also be interested in The Sunlight Foundation’s many other apps including:

Sitegeist

Sitegeist combines open data in a way that allows users to learn more about the area around them. Using publicly available APIs, the app presents infographics with statistics on the people, housing, events, environment and history of a location.

Ad Hawk

Ad Hawk  helps identify political ads as they air. Ad Hawk makes an acoustic fingerprint based on audio recorded while a television or radio ad plays and compares it against a central database for a match. The application will then display information about the candidate, organizations, issues and other relevant information.

Sunlight Health

Sunlight Health is an application to look up healthcare services, medical suppliers and prescription drugs. Using data from government and nonprofit institutions, the app shows government ratings of hospitals and nursing homes, nearby locations to purchase home medical supplies and research on various prescription drug options.

[Sunlight Foundation]

—

Featured image courtesy of [sunlightfoundation via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Mobile App. ‘Congress’ Legislative Bill Tracker appeared first on Law Street.