By Steve Levy
Last month, I penned an op-ed that urged Suffolk residents to oppose a referendum that will increase the terms of legislators from two years to four years. Since then, we’ve come across an opinion piece written by Suffolk County’s presiding officer with the misleading headline that reads “Preserving Suffolk’s Term Limits and the Will of the Voters.”
Well, I support term limits and the right of the presiding officer to submit an opinion different from mine. However, I thought it was important to respond because the headline was based on the false premise that voting for the referendum will undo term limits in Suffolk. It doesn’t.
There is nothing about this referendum that has to do with term limits. Term limits were put in place by the county in the 1990s when I — then a Democratic legislator — provided the deciding vote to implement term limits in the county. Because that referendum passed, legislators and the executive are limited to 12 years of service in their respective positions.
In a totally unrelated matter, the New York State legislature passed a new law that places local elections for county executives and legislators into the even-year cycle so that these seats will now be on the ballot along with governors, state legislators and the president.
The reason local races were always on odd-numbered years is that it allowed for the races to get the proper attention they required. This new law will drown out any coverage for local races, given all of the attention that will focus on governors and presidents.
There was a very mischievous intent on the part of the Democrats in the state legislature to pass this new law, which being that more of their Democratic voters come out to vote in the even-numbered years. It was a purely partisan move. So local legislators had every right to be angry.
It also meant that they would now have to run in three out of four years … this year, next year, and again in 2028. While we agree with the legislators that this is unfair, we don’t think the answer is to create a four-year term just to eliminate the race they would have to run in 2026. Lest we forget, the public rebuked the legislature’s earlier efforts in a 2020 referendum to expand the term length from two to four years.
It is indeed misleading for anyone to suggest that voting against this referendum will do away with term limits. The article disingenuously suggests, “With the approval of voters in November, term limits will be preserved.”
You can be for or against this proposition, but one thing is clear: It has absolutely nothing to do with term limits. Those promoting this referendum should just be honest with the public. They just don’t want to have to run in both 2025 and again in 2026.
So vote on the merits of this proposition as you see fit, but make sure you know the facts. Term limits will remain in place whether or not this referendum passes.