'Term' Outrage Nonpartisan

'Term' Outrage Nonpartisan

It was more than a bit unusual to have Conservative Party State Chairman Mike Long and former Giuliani administration Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro joining forces with veteran civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel and radical City Councilman Charles Barron last week in a lawsuit challenging the amendment to the Term Limits Law pushed through by Mayor Bloomberg.

Normally the first two gentlemen would come together with the other two strictly as adversaries, whether in the political arena or on a panel discussion. That they are united against the process by which the Mayor, City Council Members and other citywide officials were given the right to seek a third term indicates that the outrage transcends political and ideological lines.

They face a difficult battle in U.S. District Court, since there is a legal precedent for permitting legislators to amend a law that was originally approved through a voter referendum.

But Mr. Siegel and Mr. Mastro both told reporters last week that they are counting on the court recognizing that extending term limits beyond the two terms that voters approved in 1993 and then reaffirmed three years later has the effect of nullifying the wishes of the electorate. They contended that this not only disenfranchised those who brought the law into being and voted to continue it, but would discourage citizen participation in future referenda by convincing them that any action they took could be wiped out at the whim of elected officials.

Regardless of whether that claim ultimately prevails in court, it already has been affirmed by public reaction to the change in the law. The fears that some of Mr. Bloomberg's key advisers had about the political consequences of making a change without voter input — a backlash that could threaten his legacy and even his chances of winning a third term — seem justified.

Council Members, who lack the Mayor's huge war chest, have particular reason to be fearful of a voter backlash next year. Public anger and a surge in new voters who enthusiastically turned out this year and voted out at least two longtime State Senators are not a healthy combination for Council incumbents who will have to explain why they concluded that democracy was too important to be entrusted to the people they serve. It might be wise for all the elected officials who pushed through the change to reconsider and seek a referendum before they are either compelled to do so by a court or see the voters provide it next November on Election Day.