Only One State Doesn’t Allow Governors to Serve Two Terms in a Row. Is It Time for That to Change?

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s announcement of the Commission on Integrity and Public Confidence in State Government drew applause from across the commonwealth.

The politician-populated commission will look at caps on gifts for lawmakers, policies on personal use of campaign funds and procedures for congressional redistricting, among many others.

But it also plans to take up the question of whether Virginia governors should be allowed to serve consecutive terms. At present, Virginia is the only state to not allow this. In practice, the result is that governors serve one term and don’t return.

Bright minds disagree on whether Virginia’s governor should serve consecutive terms, but one thing is clear to Richard Kelsey, an assistant dean at George Mason University School of Law: This “has nothing to do with ethics.” Kelsey said:

I don’t know how to be kind about this, and I’m sorry because I’d like to say something erudite and dean-like, but the fact of the matter is it is the stupidest thing I’ve heard of in my life. That is not an ethical issue. That is a structure-of-the-power-of-government issue that goes to the Constitution.

If anything, letting governors serve two consecutive terms would give Virginia’s top elected official more time to misbehave, Kelsey said.

Virginia’s prohibition on governors serving consecutive terms dates to 1830, when the current state constitution went into effect. To counteract the handicap of not allowing governors to succeed themselves, Virginia has made its governor among the most powerful—if not the most powerful—in the nation.

Experts, even those who generally favor two terms, have said a shift in power away from the governor’s office is needed to allow two consecutive terms.

This article was modified to correct the description of current law. 

Read more at Watchdog.org