If there’s anything the mess in Albany has taught us, it’s that term limits might not be such a bad thing.
State lawmakers can clearly become so entrenched in their careers - and doing everything they can to stay in power and gain more of it - that they forget their principal mission of serving their constituents.
Things might have played out differently if term limits were in place. Perhaps if they existed, Hiram Monseratte and Pedro Espada might have figured the following: Hey, since we can’t stick around forever, we might as well leave midnight plots and “coups” to real revolutionaries and concentrate instead on passing important legislation. You know, to make the world a better place.
Maybe term-limited lawmakers would now be concentrating on addressing pressing issues - such as same-sex marriage and mayoral control - instead of arguing over control of the Senate like toddlers fighting over toy trucks in a sandbox.
Of course, we tried this in New York City. Residents voted twice for term limits in the 1990’s, only to see Mayor Bloomberg throw the law out the window when he remembered all of a sudden being mayor of the greatest city in the world is much cooler than being ex-mayor of said city.
So who knows? Still, we think locking Albany into term limits might be something worth considering.