In recent years, missteps, no steps and travesties in Albany and Washington have led many New Yorkers and many Americans to believe term limits are our only way to fashion good government. That gives voters scant credit for being able to recognize ineptitude when they see it. More important, though, it could pave the way for even worse difficulties than we have now.
We all understand the infatuation with term limits. If the rubes and scoundrels can't do the job, clean house and get a new team in there that can. Simple.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
This newspaper has editorialized against term limits in the past, mainly on the fundamental constitutional question of, If a voter wants a particular, qualified representative, under what authority does a democratic government deny the right? The more appropriate means of dislodging an under-performing or misperforming representative is not to pass a law but to expose the shortcomings and let the voters decide. It is they — not arbitrary restrictions — that ought to have the final say.
But let's disregard the ideological argument and address the problem solely on practical grounds: If we impose term limits on the State Legislature, say, what kind of legislature will it deliver to us?
We discussed this matter last week with Assemblywoman Janet Duprey (R-Peru), who understands both sides of the question and professes to lean in favor of term limits. (Some critics will say, Why shouldn't she? She's in her mid-60s, and term limits for her pose little personal consequence.)
Duprey says the term of office for members of Assembly ought to be stretched from two to four years. That would allow members to do more governing and less campaigning. That makes sense.
Three terms ought to be about right. Twelve years would allow a member to do what he or she needs to get done and turn things over to the next successful candidate. It would also make sure the same people weren't around for entire careers and creating new ways to corrupt the system.
But then what? Who would run next? In fact, who would run at all?
By capping the length of employment at 12 years, we would be eliminating most people from ever even considering running for office.
Though the legislature is considered part-time, we know it is not. They may not be in Albany 365 days a year, but they are there plenty and attending local functions the rest of the time.
What worthy aspirant in his or her mid-30s or 40s, say, could interrupt a career for 12 years at that stage of life for a fling with government? The wealthy, of course. Or lawyers, who can retain lucrative practices. Otherwise, government would be left mostly to the retired. It doesn't paint a picture of improved government, to have it restricted to so few prospective participants.
It appears that term limits will sooner or later be passed as a panacea for all the problems in Albany. It will only create new ones.
Opinion
February 8, 2010
EDITORIAL: Term limits pose new problems
- Editorial
-
-
Editorial: No raise for state legislators
This is not the year for state lawmakers to look for a raise.
- Editorial: A pair of aces among the Cards
- Editorial: Nurses, aides: a breed apart
-
Editorial: No raise for state legislators
- Cheers and Jeers
-
-
Cheers and Jeers: Feb. 13, 2012
CHEERS to Peru High School teacher Kathleen Roach and Cardinal Points.
-
Cheers and Jeers: Feb. 13, 2012
- Letters to the Editor
- Speakout
- In My Opinion
-
-
In My Opinion: E'town water, sewer essential
Elizabethtown has a history of economic ups and downs, Town Supervisor Margaret Bartley writes.
-
In My Opinion: E'town water, sewer essential
