News-Record.com

A nasty head cold has me in a surly mood today, so I'm not sympathetic to state legislators whining about having to run for office every two years.

Fifty-nine House members have signed on to a measure that would extend legislative terms from two years to four, if voters approved the required constitutional amendment.

Proponents state two complaints: They have to spend the second year of their term running for re-election, and they have to raise more campaign money.

"Less need to raise money, proponents of the measure argue, would mean fewer opportunities to run afoul of legal or ethical rules," Mark reports.

Heaven help us. If they can't follow legal and ethical rules every two years, what makes anyone think they'll do better every four years?

And whom are they kidding with this nonsense about running for re-election half the time?

A quick check of 2008 election results finds that more than half of this bill's sponsors -- 30 out of 59 -- ran unopposed in November. Three others faced only a Libertarian Party opponent. Many others won by lopsided margins.

These are the same legislators who draw their own gerrymandered districts designed to eliminate competition. Most of them are virtually guaranteed victory.

Now this bunch wants not only guaranteed victory, but guaranteed victory every four years instead of two.

I would support four-year terms for legislators on one condition: That they create an independent authority to draw fair legislative districts. Give voters a real choice in legislative elections. Then they'd be worth waiting four years for.