ABSTRACT In response to complaints about unbeatable incumbents, sixteen states now have some form of term limit legislation. Among the claims of term limit proponents is that by largely removing the power of incumbency and essentially leveling the playing field, elections will be more competitive. Through a comparative analysis of the 1990, 1998, 2000, and 2002 elections for the Michigan House of Representatives, this study provides an initial look at elections within Michigan and shows that the effects of term limits on election competitiveness thus far are ambiguous. Competition was enhanced during the 1998 election due to the large number of vacated term-limited seats, yet in 2000 competition levels returned to normal. In fact, when measured by the number of uncontested elections, competition for office was reduced during the primaries to a level below the 1990 election. The 2002 election muddies the water even more. There the general election figures indicate little overall change in competitiveness, while the primary election shows an increase of competitiveness for open seats coupled with an increase in uncontested elections involving incumbents. In essence, this study suggests that once every six years Michigan citizens can expect to see a competitive race (during the primaries) in their individual House district. Between those years competition will decline as strong challengers wait for the incumbent to step down.
