Every two years, something unusual happens in Idaho: every single member of the Legislature is up for election. All 70 members of the Idaho House face the voters. So do all 35 members of the Idaho Senate.

That means every legislator in Boise operates on essentially the same political clock. Every two years, every seat is on the ballot, every incumbent is potentially campaigning, and every member knows the next primary is never far away.

We should change that.

Idaho should keep two-year terms for members of the House but move state senators to four-year terms, staggered so roughly half the Senate is elected every two years. It would make the Senate more deliberative, provide greater continuity in state government, reduce some of the election-year incentives for political theater and strengthen the Legislature’s ability to serve as a check on the permanent bureaucracy.

Most importantly, it would create a meaningful institutional difference between Idaho’s two legislative chambers. After all, if we’re going to have a House and a Senate, they shouldn’t simply be two versions of the same thing.

The Idaho Constitution currently gives representatives and senators the same two-year terms. The House is larger and the Senate smaller, but members of both chambers face voters on precisely the same schedule. That’s not how most states do it.

And there is a reason. The two chambers of a legislature are supposed to serve somewhat different purposes.

The House should be the chamber closest to the people and most immediately responsive to shifts in public opinion. Its members should return to voters frequently. Two-year terms make sense.

The Senate should be different. A Senate is traditionally the smaller and more deliberative legislative body. Its members should have greater opportunity to take a longer view, develop expertise and provide continuity as political winds change.

That doesn’t make senators more important than representatives. It gives them a different institutional role.

Consider the political life of a newly elected Idaho senator. Win an election in November. Go to Boise in January. Serve one legislative session. Spend the interim knowing another election is approaching. Return for a second session—and by then the primary election is only months away. Then start all over again. There is barely time to govern before it’s time to campaign.

Today, every one of Idaho’s 105 legislative seats appears on the ballot at the same time. Theoretically, a single election could send 105 brand-new legislators to Boise.

Some Idahoans might hear that and say: Good. There is something appealing about a clean sweep. Turnover can bring fresh ideas, disrupt comfortable relationships and remind elected officials that the offices they occupy belong to the people.

But there is another side to that equation. If every legislator is new, state government isn’t. The agencies are still there. The departments are still there. The administrative rules, budget processes and government programs are still there. And the career employees who have spent years—or decades—working inside that system are still there.

One of the Legislature’s most important responsibilities is overseeing the executive branch and the permanent bureaucracy beneath it. Lawmakers control appropriations, write the laws agencies implement and are supposed to ask hard questions on behalf of taxpayers. To do that effectively, legislators need expertise of their own.

That’s an important point for those of us who believe in limited government. Limiting government isn’t only about asking how much power government possesses. We should also care about where that power resides and who exercises it.

When institutional knowledge is concentrated in the executive agencies while legislators are perpetually inexperienced, the balance of power tilts toward the permanent government.

A staggered Senate would provide a safeguard against that. Under four-year Senate terms, elections could still produce enormous change. Voters could replace the entire House and roughly half the Senate in a single election if they wanted to. But roughly half the Senate would remain.

There are, of course, reasonable objections to four-year terms. Longer terms can give incumbents an advantage. A voter unhappy with a senator might have to wait longer for an opportunity to replace that person. Those are legitimate concerns. But four years is hardly a lifetime appointment.

Idaho’s governor serves a four-year term. So do governors across most of the country. We don’t conclude that governors are unaccountable because voters don’t get to reconsider the office every 24 months.

Right now, Idaho essentially has two legislative bodies operating on the same two-year election cycle. We can do better. Keep the Idaho House exactly as it is: 70 representatives serving two-year terms, with every seat before voters every two years. Change the Idaho Senate to four-year terms, with approximately half its members elected every two years.

It’s not a radical idea. It’s how Washington does it. And Oregon. And Montana. And Utah. And Wyoming. It’s the prevailing model across much of the country.

More importantly, it fits the purpose of having a Senate in the first place. Idaho doesn’t need two Houses of Representatives.