Submitted by Larry Littlefield, Sep 11, 2007 09:14

There is no greater supporter of term limits than I am. The goal of term limits is to break up perpetual incumbency and create real elections. On a factual basis, are not present for legislative offices without them (think about the New York State legislature, or City Council races where an incumbent is running, and tell me otherwise). So you have legislators who are loyal to those who provide the funds to keep challengers off the ballot, and unrepresentative of those living in their districts.

This goal of term limits is in no way harmed by having former elected officials run for an office, even the same office. Unlike a perpertual incumbent, they will have to justifiy their election to those residing in the district today, not just those milking the area on their way out the door. It is much easier for a hack to stay in office, if they can avoid indictment, than to earn office in a real contested election, and not all former Councilmembers were hacks.

So let them run.

I believe that most of those raising this issue are people who are AGAINST term limits. I think, however, that most people would agree with me on this one. The results are in, and term limits work just as they are.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.