Extending limit to three terms a good idea

It's not as good as an outright repeal of term limits, but Sen. Tom Carlson's proposed constitutional amendment to limit lawmakers to three back-to-back terms is a step in the right direction.

Nebraska voters approved term limits of two consecutive terms in 2000, which went into effect in 2006. Senators can run again if they sit out one term.

We've always felt it is a mistake to limit capable, knowledgeable lawmakers to two terms, barring legislators from serving just as they have gained enough experience and created the networks necessary to be effective.

We already had term limits -- voters could turn away any lawmaker they don't like at election time. We suspect most people who favor term limits do so because they want to limit the terms of officials elected from other legislative districts, not their own.

Fifteen states have some sort of term limits, and six have repealed them. Six states have lifetime bans after the terms are served, but only Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, preventing term-limited lawmakers from running for the Senate after serving in the House and vice-versa.

Term limit proponents contend that enacting the limits leaves seats open for more participants, and perhaps it does. But when they are forced to leave, seasoned lawmakers take with them the institutional memory that otherwise would keep the legislative body from fighting the same battles over and over, and making "rookie" mistakes that take years to correct.

That institutional memory, and the power it creates, shifts to unelected bureacrats.

Extending the limit to three terms should help keep the power in the hands of voters, where it belongs.