The trouble with term limits

Lots of old familiar faces in the Cincinnati City Council race following Thursday’s filing deadline.

Roxanne Qualls, Charlie Winburn and Minette Cooper all want their old positions back, having been previously term-limited and forced to sit out at least four years as required by the city charter.

I’d say the chances are pretty good for at least two, possibly all three, getting back on council. If that happens it will confirm the fallacy of the whole term-limit philosophy. As former councilman and term-limit advocate Nick Vehr explained in a story the other day, the idea behind term limits is to let new blood circulate through the political process. Council members can serve eight consecutive years but then have to leave, even if they want to stay.

I think it’s a bad idea whenever you take voters out of the political process. The idea that incumbency somehow makes council candidates invulnerable just isn’t true. Just ask Christopher Smitherman and Sam Malone, both of whom were voted out of their seats two years ago well before they reached term limits.

On the other hand, Jim Tarbell, forced off council by term limits this year (and now migrating over to the school board race) probably could easily have kept his council seat for another term if the decision had been left up to the voters.