Good news for those who were dismayed that some Suffolk County officials employed questionable tactics in seeking approval for a countywide referendum that extended their terms from two to four years: The chairman of the Suffolk County Democratic Party has indicated that he will be initiating a lawsuit to have a court declare the proposition illegal. (Even though the Democratic loyal opposition from the legislature was AWOL on the issue, probably because, deep down, they wanted the four-year terms as well.)
It’s hard to remember a situation in which more chicanery was used by proponents of a particular resolution. In this case, some legislators were deliberately making the false claim that this proposition would implement or preserve term limits in Suffolk County.
Term limits were already on the books and would have remained in Suffolk, whether or not the referendum passed. The actual purpose of the referendum — which was downplayed by these legislators — was to extend their terms from two to four years.
It was just a few years earlier that legislators tried to get their terms extended, but the public soundly defeated the proposal by a 2- to-1 margin. So, this time around, they repackaged the measure as a term limit bill because they knew the overwhelming majority of Suffolk County residents are supportive of term limits.
Being disingenuous does not necessarily violate the law. What is legally questionable is whether term length extensions could be put into effect retroactively.
That’s what it appears they tried to do here.
The candidates who had their petitions signed to get on the ballot in the spring of this year did so with an understanding by the public that they were running for a two-year term. Many legal observers have opined that they cannot have that term magically transitioned into a longer term via a resolution that is passed after the fact.
We understand why legislators wanted this extension. The state passed a flawed law last year that shifted local elections from odd years to even years. This was problematic for many reasons, the first of which is that local town and county races would be obscured by the more high-profile gubernatorial and presidential races.
It would also require these legislators to run three times in four years — first in 2025, then again for the even-year shift in 2026, and then for their normal two-year re-election in 2028.
It would have been more likely to pass legal muster had they put in a provision that would create a four-year term for the re-election in 2026, thereby obviating the need for them to run three times in four years. But they didn’t want to run again next year, so they are trying to convert this year’s term into a four-year term retroactively. Rather than running three times in four years, now they’ll be running just once.
The better way would have been to keep 2025 as it was and thereafter run again in 2026, with that election — and that election only — being a four-year term. Once they are in sync with the even-year voting pattern, the elections from 2030 onward would revert back to the traditional two-year terms.
We hope that a judge indeed throws this flawed referendum out so they can start over. There is a reason Congress and members of the state assembly and county legislators are elected for two years. It keeps them closer to the people and more accountable to the voters.
And to the state, we say: Give us our odd-year elections back, along with frequent and fair elections, just like the Founding Fathers called for.
Steve Levy is President of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. He served as Suffolk County Executive, as a NYS Assemblyman, and host of the “On the Right Side Podcast.” He is the author of “Solutions to America’s Problems” and “Bias in the Media.” www.SteveLevy.info, Twitter @SteveLevyNY, steve@commonsensestrategies.com