It’s hard to get down with the formulation of the charge made by the complainants in the law suit that seeks to prevent the extension of term limits in New York, quoted in this NYT article:
Allowing a self-interested mayor and City Council to dismiss the results of two recent referenda undermines the integrity of the voting process, effectively nullifies the constitutionally protected right to vote, and perniciously chills political speech by sending the unavoidable message that the democratic exercises of initiatives and referenda can be disregarded by public officials.
Even if 99 percent of incumbents are reelected, the extension of term limits doesn’t nullify the right to vote. The two-term limit on the presidency wasn’t in effect until 1951, and before that, Roosevelt was the only president in office for more than eight years. Besides, it sounds a little petty to call the mayor and City Council “self-interested.” Does this overturning really incite an ambivalent “throw your hands up because the government will do what it wants anyway” political sentiment? Rather than picking on the term limits extension because it isn’t consistent with what voters wanted 12 years ago, the language of the suit would be significantly more compelling if it questioned the ethics of term limits.
