Mitchell: ‘Incumbency Protection Act’ Working Fairly Well

It’s April. Mississippi’s general election is in November. Want to be on a ballot? To part of the “change” people are always talking about? Sorry. Two months to late. Qualifying for any county or state office (except school boards) ended Feb. 27.

Back in the 1990s, a major shift to earlier candidate deadlines was enacted. Lawmakers themselves called it the “Incumbency Protection Act.”

They knew what they were doing.

Many felt unappreciated or under assault by all the “term limits” activity in those years. Their response was to narrow the filing window for anyone who might seek election, to slam it shut more than eight months before voters make their final selections. It was an alternative route to job preservation.

Now the preceding may sound cynical, perhaps overly cynical. Fact is that voters tend to like “their guy.” The attitude is usually that it’s others who need to go.

Indeed, it was the consensus view of Mississippi voters in 1995 and again in 1999 that enacting term limits was equivalent to throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If a county had a great sheriff who was willing to serve more than eight years (two terms), then why should voters be denied be the opportunity of granting that sheriff a third term, or a fourth or fifth?

Many states enacted term limits during what was, admittedly, a stronger “throw the bums out” era that we’re now experiencing.

But Mississippians said no.

A double super majority is required on initiatives in Mississippi. If a majority approves a measure, the raw number of “yes” votes on the specific question must also be more than 40 percent of total number of people who voted on anything else in the election.

That’s a brain boggler, but no matter. In 1995, only 45.7 percent of Mississippians who cast ballots thought term limits was a good idea. Four years later and on a slightly different measure, the “pro” limits proportion was even smaller.

We like “our guys” (including our guys who are girls).

Incumbency is strong medicine.

Data compiled by opensecrets.org shows that in 2012 voting for U.S. House seats 90 percent of people seeking re-election won. We are exposed to a constant media harangue about the low esteem in which Congress is held. So … two years later in 2014, the number of House members re-elected rose to 95 percent — including all four delegates from Mississippi.

The Senate was not much different. A third of Senate seats are on ballots every two years. In 2012, 91 percent were returned; in 2014, the rate dropped to 82 percent.

More than voter loyalty and filing deadlines figure into this.

Another factor, at least in legislative elections, is the district lines lawmakers draw for themselves. Mississippi legislators often refer to districts by describing them as a “white” district” or a “black district” or a “Republican district” or Democratic district.” It hasn’t always been this way. Today, election outcomes in most districts are race- and ideology-specific if not candidate-specific.

The repeated electoral success of “our guy” follows, because “our guy,” for the most part, matches our district’s thinking.

Need proof? Ballotpedia identified 14 states where term limits opened a total of 276 legislative seats. No incumbents. But in 215 of those districts, voters elected a candidate from the same political party as the person whose exit was required by law.

Incumbents do their research. They know what words and themes resonate where, and use that information to their advantage. This isn’t cheating or wrong. It’s the way electioneering works.

The last factor is cash. Not so much in local elections, but it’s getting that way. The average candidate who won an open U.S. House seat last year, opensecrets.org says, spent $1.5 million, a full million more than the average losing candidate. Incumbents who had challengers spent $4 for every dollar their rivals spent. Those few who defeated incumbents outspent them, on average, $3.4 million to $2.4 million.

It’s kind of like ancient times. A coastal city spotting an enemy flotilla on the horizon might run up the white flag. Similarly. a person thinking about seeking elective office might see an incumbent’s “war chest” and determine discretion is the better part of valor.

Is it necessarily bad to keep electing the same people again and again? No. The collective wisdom of the state electorate has made it clear they don’t think so.

What’s wrong is to expect radical action, as many voters seem to expect, when safety and self-preservation are first on the agenda for candidates who win.

Charlie Mitchell is a Mississippi journalist and assistant dean of the Meek School of Journalism and New Media. Write to him at cmitchell43@yahoo.com.