Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.


That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
job training.

We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.

Grey Satterfield



Well, I'm a member of the Faculty Senate in my 12th year. We have a
provision that a senator can only serve for two terms of three years
each, then has to stand down for at least one year. However, once a
person is out for at least a year, he or she can run again.

The problem with absolute term limits for legislators is that there are
a few people who really do a great job. Most people in New Mexico are
fans of our two Senators, one from each party. Both have good support
in all parties.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...2-8db9a3e3054a

However, limiting the number of consecutive terms does have its merits.
That way, if a person is really a great legislator, he or she will be
able to win the seat after sitting out a term without the incumbent's
advantage and those that don't just won't be able to come back.


John Mullen