Term Limits and Voters' Freedom of Choice

It is with sadness that I read the article "Washington State Initiative May Shrink Lawmakers' Terms," Sept. 12. We, as voters, already have the right to limit the terms of officeholders. However, we also have the right to continue in service the legislators if we so choose. Not wanting us to have that choice is what term-limitation groups such as LIMIT are all about.In politics, power is not in who makes the choice, but who controls the choices. LIMIT wants to control the choices in Washington State with this initiative. No matter how satisfied we may be with someone's job performance, we are not allowed to vote for that person to continue. Anyway you look at it, that means less power, less control for the voter than he or she has today. These initiatives are much more anti-voter than anti-incumbent. The organizers of these initiatives are displeased with the voters for returning incumbents so frequently to office. They feel the voters cannot be trusted and that voters, like inattentive children, must be led by the hand to more limited choices. A legislator cannot accomplish anything without a majority. That isn't a work of days, but of years. I write to defend not politicians, but the voter's right to commit to a vision, to help the lawmakers keep their promises. Voters in three states have lost that right. It is deception to suggest private citizens can regain control of their government by restrictions on who they can vote for. Curtis Kaine, Princeton, N.J.

Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published, subject to condensation, and none acknowledged. Please address them to "Readers Write," One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115.