"The elimination of the Kentucky Incumbent Protection System would have more impact than any other reform of our election laws, since it would result in greater accountability to voters—if not more choices for voters at the polls. " —Martin Cothran Senior Policy Analyst

Special to the Lexington Herald-Leader
 

Martin Cothran  The Family Foundation

First Serial Rights © The Family Foundation

Put a halt to the Kentucky Incumbent Protection System

IN THE MOVIE “SUPERMAN,” Lois Lane is falling off of a tall building when she is caught by Superman:

I’ve got you,” says Superman.

But who’s got you?” asks Lois.

Last year voters approved a Constitutional amendment proposed by state lawmakers changing the General Assembly’s meeting schedule, which had been every other year, to allow for yearly legislative sessions. One of the reasons given for the change was to hold the Governor more accountable: instead of having to wait two years for elected lawmakers to review the Governor’s actions and make laws governing the executive branch, now they can do this every year.

In other words, according to the majority of legislators (and apparently the majority of voters), we are somehow better off if the Governor is more accountable. But why isn’t the same thing true of legislators? If accountability works with the Governor, then why doesn’t it work with state lawmakers?

In short, the Legislature’s got the Governor; but who’s got the Legislature?

Currently, the current filing deadline for legislative candidates in late January causes most important legislation to be held up until February and March.

Why? Because many incumbent lawmakers want to avoid challenges to their seats. If a lawmaker casts a vote that can be attacked by a potential challenger, it gives the potential challenger that much more reason to file. Therefore, many controversial bills, many of which are very important pieces of legislation, are held in committee, and moved only when the filing deadline passes.

Not only does this result in unnecessary wasted time during the first several weeks of even-years regular legislative sessions, but it is a way of avoiding accountability to voters—who always benefit from a greater choice of candidates for public office.

This “Kentucky Incumbent Protection System” is not written in stone, although it will be hard to change, since those with the power to eliminate it are the ones who benefit from it.

At least one piece of legislation has already been introduced to deal with it: Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Senate President David Williams, would move the late January filing deadline to mid-April—after, rather than before, lawmakers have cast their votes. Many observers question whether legislation like this will ever see the light of day partly because it would change the filing deadline that protects incumbents, and partly because it would result in other changes not popular with the powers that be. But the recent presidential election has already caused discussion of election reform among lawmakers.

Much of this discussion, however, has focused on tinkering with the balloting system. The elimination of the Kentucky Incumbent Protection System would have more impact than any other reform of our election laws, since it would result in greater accountability to voters—if not more choices for voters at the polls. The legislative filing deadline in late January should be moved to mid-April so that all legislative votes are out in the open. Accountability helps voters—and lawmakers—make better decisions about public policy.

Martin Cothran is senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky, a nonprofit educational organization dealing with public policy issues affecting families.