Term Limits Eject the Good Officials Along With Bad
Prof. Mark Petracca makes a valiant argument in favor of term limits for local, state and national offices (“What’s Good for the State Would Be Good for the Cities Too,†Commentary, March 22). But he can’t escape the simple, sad truth: Term limits are a poor alternative to finding a real solution to the apathy of American voters.
Term-limit proposals seek to perform in a scatter-gun manner what should be reserved for those specific cases where needed--the removal of elected representatives who no longer serve their constituency or the common good.
The professor argues that term limits on city offices will open up to more people opportunities for public service. The more likely effect is that cities will be consigned to routinely mediocre representation. Just as a politician needs a certain amount of time to become entrenched, he or she needs a certain amount of time to become effective. Like the baby in the bath water, term limits will throw out people who were just getting good, along with those who were just going bad.
If we decide to reform anything about the electoral process with legislation, let’s start with the lax regulations on campaign funding that lend unfair advantage to incumbents. But let’s also recognize, and try to change, the fact that most people just don’t know or care what goes on at City Hall.
It’s been said before and needs to be said again: We already have a way to limit the terms of bad politicians and it’s called the vote.
JAMES M. RANALLI, Anaheim
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
