Terms Ending for Legislators

When I read “Many View Term Limits Bitterly as End Nears for 34 Lawmakers” (Aug. 26) I was compelled to question once again the political tendency toward all-or-nothing solutions. Instead, we would do better to reach for formulas that can allow for both extremes. I believe that term limit laws can be rewritten to do just that.

The funny thing about this idea is that every time I’ve mentioned it to people who are politically aware, on both extremes of the spectrum, they’ve applauded it. It would allow the electorate of Indiana to have a chance to reelect Gov. Evan Bayh, if they want him badly enough. And there would also be less bitterness in Sacramento.

My formula? Allow any politician to run after two terms but require that he or she win a larger plurality. How much larger may be argued, but for sake of illustration, let’s say a third-term victory would require a 55% majority; a fourth, 60%, etc.

Term limits, as currently written, don’t only limit the politician--they disenfranchise the electorate, as well. That’s not good law. A limitation on terms is good, but let’s keep our options open at the same time. This formula recognizes that there are some politicians who are worth keeping in office! It is a much more balanced approach to reforming election law. In addition, it’s clearly less of a departure from what the Founding Fathers wrote into the genius of the Constitution.

JULES BRENNER

Hollywood