I believe New York has a limit of 2 four year terms. I think there’s a reason for this, a very good one, so why not in Chicago?
Chicago mafia prefers to buy politicians with no expiration date.
Pretty basic, really. The constituants (voters) in Chicago haven’t voted for term limits.
On a more broad basis, Cook County is generally regarded as a Democratic stronghold. Generally, term limits is a Republican issue. So I would think that it would be less likely to pass there than elsewhere.
It might be more accurate to say it’s an issue for the party that’s NOT in the majority.
Term Limits was a big issue in the republican “Contract for America”, when they were the minority in Congress. But now, when they control Congress & the White House, it never seems to be discussed. And it certainly hasn’t been passed into law.
Cynics would say the reality is that “I think there should be limits to that guy’s term. But not on my term.”
[indent][indent]
[sup]Does the name Daley, tell you anything?[/sup][/indent][/indent]
Not to get too political, but term limits, when they’ve been enacted, have been at the initiative of state-level campaigns. I can’t recall which state it was that tried to term-limit its congressional seats but the law was struck down, the court ruling that only the federal government may enact term limits on federal offices. The Republicans in Congress know that it would require a constitutional amendment to term limit Congress and they apparently don’t have the time to schedule debates on more than one frivolous amendment at a time.
California seems to be the current poster child for term limits and it seems every election cycle I read a number of stories about how term-limited politicians start looking for new offices to run for along with the occasional editorial about how term limits in California are responsible for every ill the state is facing by clearing off the cream of the experienced pols and leaving less prepared people in leadership positions.
Of course every elected office already has term limits, they’re called “elections.”
Precisely why I’m asking.
Uh, that was a joke.
Not quite GQ:
One of the nice things [about a decade + with Daley] is that there’s not the huge shakeup that occurs everytime someone else is elected as he tried to destroy the legacy of their predecessors, when the various departments scramble to protect their jobs, blowing their yearly budgets to make it look like they’re doing something, etc.*
He also manages to keep the aldermen more-or-less in line, which presents a measure of constancy and unity to the city instead of breaking it back into fiefdoms whereby everyone fights for their piece instead of (kinda) patiently waiting in line, or at least sticking to the things that they can control instead of getting too big for their britches.
That said, there are really only major shakeups/“progress” when there’s a major crisis (see Park District below).
- I’ll concede that the practical effect of this is that, as Jarbaby noticed in one of her threads, the various departments really have no incentive to do anything unless the Mayor’s right-hand man is elected head of the ailing Park District and does some funny shit to get those guys in gear.
Because it would cost too much to change all the “Richard M. Daley, Mayor” signs.
Man, they’re everywhere!
As I understand it, the big problem with term limits here in California is not just that the experienced folks are out and the newbies are in (that’s not automatically bad, and everybody doing the job has to learn it by doing), but that most of the legislation is now being written by paid lobbyists. The new folks don’t really know what’s going on and how to get things done, and they aren’t going to get much of a chance before they are out and the next crop is in. Meanwhile, the XYZ Lobby still has their guy in Sacramento, he can stay there forever.