Checks and balances

In Massachusetts, one man exerts significant control over state government. Thomas Finneran, the House Speaker has more power than his position entitles him. He uses this power to stop popular initiatives. This year, he obstructed the implementation of Massachusetts' Clean Election Act. The lawsuits and negative publicity created by this obstruction led Massachusetts's voters to repeal the Clean Elections Act in the recent election. Mr. Finneran is so powerful, a central issue in the gubernatorial race was whether Mitt Romney or Shannon Obrien could better cooperate with Mr. Finneran.

This one man should not have the power he currently controls. As the population does not directly elect him, Massachusetts' citizens can not choose another candidate in an election. The only way to remove Mr. Finneran from power is to "term limit" him out. Term limits, while politically controversial, are necessary in a democracy to prevent a single person from dominating the political system for extended periods.

The presidency, the most powerful office in American politics is term-limited. Limiting time in office for the executive branch was not an original part of the Constitution, and it took the 22nd Amendment to ensure no person could serve as president for more than two terms. Without this vital amendment, a popular incumbent president could receive continuous reelection, amassing greater power each term, and eventually become a dictator. Term limiting of the presidency is now one of the fundamental checks on the executive branch.

Since the 22nd Amendment's ratification in 1951, term limits have trickled down to state governments. Thirty-seven states now limit time in office for governors. In the last ten years, 17 states have term limited their state legislators. Some states even tried to place term limits on their United States congressmen and senators, but these limits have been declared unconstitutional, as only the federal government can determine the regulations governing federal offices.

These term limits have invigorated the political process. New candidates can find opportunities to run for office against no incumbent, giving them a chance to win. Incumbent politicians who are unpopular, yet have been reelected due to name recognition, are forced out of office. Term limits ensure turnover and prevent any single person from hijacking the democratic process.

There is a down side to term limits. Qualified politicians who are doing a great job face the same limits and unqualified politicians who are disappointing the electorate. Once their term limit comes up, even the best politicians cannot seek reelection. But these term limits have the beneficial effect of moving qualified politicians to other elected positions. Term limits prevent qualified politicians from holding one position continuously while simultaneously removing incumbents from other higher offices. Qualified politicians have a better chance of advancing up the political ladder when term limits are in place.

Mr. Finneran demonstrates why term limits are popular today. He is exerting too much control over Massachusetts politics. In terms of political power, he is almost a second governor. Unfortunately, he recognized the threat that term limits pose. In January 2001, under his leadership, the State House eliminated term limits for the speaker of the house. Mr. Finneran can now be continuously reelected as speaker, and he will only become more powerful each term. The citizens of Massachusetts should seek term limits for all state legislators, to prevent politicians like Mr. Finneran from holding too much power, and to ensure adequate turnover in their representation.