A Times Editorial

The term limits problem

The push for term limits in the 1990s has resulted in a raft of unintended consequences, many of which are just beginning to be felt.

In Tallahassee, lawmakers who face the end of their tenure have desperately jockeyed to run for other seats rather than return to private life. The prime example being House Speaker Tom Feeney, who used the power of his office to wangle a new congressional district for himself through redistricting. Moreover, all the turnover has given the Legislature little historical memory, shifting power and expertise to bureaucrats and lobbyists.

The term limits movement has produced more problems than it solved; and voters would be well-served if the limits were repealed someday. But a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court that struck down Pinellas County's term limits for its constitutional officers unnecessarily infringes on the home rule authority of charter counties.

In a 4-to-3 ruling, the court set aside the popular eight-year term limits passed by Pinellas County voters in 1996. Authored by Chief Justice Charles Wells, the ruling states that the state Constitution preempts charter counties -- of which Pinellas is one of 17 in the state -- from establishing new conditions for local candidates. Only an amendment to the state Constitution can alter the qualifications and disqualifications for these offices, said the court. The ruling applies to the county's state constitutional officers: sheriff, property appraiser, clerk of court, tax collector and elections supervisor, but it may also apply to county commission seats as well.

Since there is no appeal to a higher court available, the judgment is final. If Pinellas voters want to impose local term limits they will have to do so by either amending the state Constitution -- which will take a statewide vote -- or by abolishing the constitutional officer positions and then reconstituting them with the limits built in.

Of course, it doesn't make much sense to require each county in the state to go through this process in order to establish local term limit rules. Nor should Pinellas County voters have to go through the charade of remaking the offices. The court's three dissenters had a more logical reading of the state Constitution, one that prevents these machinations. Justice Harry Lee Anstead, writing for the dissenters, pointed to provisions of the state Constitution that can be reasonably interpreted to give Pinellas County the authority to impose local term limits if a majority of voters agree.

Article VIII, section 1(g) of the state Constitution explicitly grants the electorate of charter counties the flexibility to alter the manner in which county officers are chosen or even abolish certain offices. As Anstead wrote, the "broad language (of the home rule section of the state Constitution) was obviously intended to allow charter counties wide latitude in enacting regulations governing the selection and duties of county officers."

Anstead's reasoning did not win the day, but it should be the basis of a future clarification initiated by the Legislature. Since both the dissenting and majority opinions make plausible arguments, it is obvious that state law isn't sufficiently clear.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright