Kansas Senate and staggered terms

Would staggered terms in the Kansas Senate make a difference?

Kansas Capitol

The tax debate in Kansas centers on a promise made to voters: That the sales tax increase will be allowed to expire this year, as current law specifies. Members of the House of Representatives seem to have a solemn grip on this promise, while senators are more willing to keep the current high sales tax rate in exchange for lowering other taxes (or something else).

With two-year terms, all 125 members of the House will face the electorate next year. None of the 40 senators will, as they have three years until their next election to their four-year terms.

Does the distance to the next election make a difference? Kansas is uncommon, but not unique, in that it has legislators that are elected to lengthy terms, but not in a staggered fashion. (See Ballotpedia, Length of terms of state senators.)

California, for example, has 40 senators like Kansas, but their terms are staggered so that half the positions are up for election every two years. But in Kansas, all 40 senate seats are elected at the same time.

So in Kansas next year, all House members are facing elections, while no Senators face the same scrutiny by voters.

Does that account for the difference in positions taken by the two chambers? In three years, when senators face voters, will this year be remembered?

Should Kansas change the senate so that terms are staggered? Yes, I think so. Let’s elect odd-numbered districts in one election cycle, and even-numbered the next. In 2014, one of these groups — half the senate seats — will be elected to two-year terms to get the stagger started. Flip a coin to see which group starts.


3 thoughts on “Kansas Senate and staggered terms”

  1. Staggering the elections seems like a great idea…would seem to make transitions in the legislature go much smoother,,,

  2. I believe, both, the House and the Senate should have staggered terms, but to pass you must increase the term of the Senate to 6 years and the House to 4. Senators are in a position to run for statewide office on the off years without losing their seats if they lose, but if some run on the years that there is not an statewide election they will not support the idea.

  3. Leave well enough alone. It worked for 150 years. The problem isn’t the term, it’s the length of the session and impediments to even running a campaign and what that means for getting people who can serve. After that, it’s us for allowing the shenanigans. You have too many offices that have weak or no candidates each election. That needs to be fixed, plus you have to have a way to fund a campaign without spending thousands of thousands dollars and giving up your job to do it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>