Term Limits Now for Highland Park

There is a ballot initiative this November 3 election cycle for term limits that the city council for Highland Park approved, but now is asking the voting population to make it lawful, starting in 2027, but which will not take effect for eight years. After all, from my perch, this time period was evidently adopted on purpose, since it allows those seeking to run for the city council to hold office for two terms. The same applies for anyone wishing to become the city’s mayor. These time periods, certainly for anyone as a city council member for two terms, then becoming mayor for another two terms, would be in public office more than a sufficient number of years to derail the typical objection to term limits that takes the form of loss of institutional knowledge, removing voter choice, and perhaps increasing partisanship. The present Highland Park city council was thus collectively wise–again from my vantage point–in using the time periods ensconced in the ballot initiative to foreclose such objections.

But what are the advantages for term limits? Typically, they are as follows:

1. they prevent career politicians, even at the local or state level. Limits bar long-term incumbency for whatever reason (job security, notoriety, ego, etc.), and reduces the overwhelming re-election advantage held by sitting officeholders;
2. they bring fresh perspectives. Limits force appropriate turnover, introducing fresh ideas [rather than keeping stale or outdated ones], modern skill sets, and encourages a more diverse range of everyday citizens and professionals into government;
3. they allow for the reduction of elected officials spending constant time and resources on fundraising (regardless of amount needed) for indefinite election cycles;
4. they are widely popular across various levels of government on a bipartisan basis, particularly by voting constituencies that feel traditional elections do not sufficiently hold elected officials accountable. As but examples in Illinois, there are 27 municipalities that have term limits for their ruling bodies, including neighboring Wilmette and Lake Forest. And of the last 20, 10 passed by a 60% margin, the other 10 by an incredible 80% margin; and
5. Limits are an effective bar to politicians running for office who will say anything to get our vote, despite after being elected, changing their position and never intending to honor what they said on the election trail. Need we look any further to what we have seen in Illinois over the years, or, more glaringly, from who heads up the federal government at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. And for an uninformed electorate with really no knowledge to dispute what the bill of goods it is being asked to “buy” by any politician seeking office, limits become our “guardrail”—to a politician who has held elected office long enough from continuing to provide misinformation or false assertions from one election cycle to another.

As a 53 year resident of the area, I can personally attest that from observing long-term, local elected officials remaining in office past their “useful life”, deleterious effects results on the prosperity and the economic engine that must move Highland Park forward. This is even present today.

It is thus time for Highland Park voters, on balance, to vote YES on the ballot initiative to adopt term limits for those wishing to sit on the city council as well as for those wishing to become the city’s mayor. The benefits for such limits definitely outweigh any perceived objections to them.

Originally published on Highland Park, IL Patch (Neighbor News).