Miami’s lifetime term limits put the public back in public service | Opinion

I have always felt that politics should be about public service, not a career trajectory.

More than a decade in the field as a political consultant only reinforced that belief. Now, as a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board, I find my previous work gives me a unique perspective as we conduct candidate interviews during election season.

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve sat across the table from all sorts of people running for office — lawyers, real estate agents, a freight conductor, retirees.

As part of the interview, we often ask: If elected, would you continue working professionally?

Frequently, there’s a split-second pause — quick, but noticeable — almost as though they’re worried it’s a trick question. It’s not.

Then comes the most common answer — “No, I’ll dedicate myself fully to the position.”

That’s fine, admirable even. The candidates are all committed to making our community better. But what concerns me is that they’re willing to give up the most valuable thing they bring to public service: the real-life experience they get from their job.

Public service is noble, and I applaud those who choose to serve. But holding political office shouldn’t be a permanent job. That’s why I support term limits, not only at the congressional level but at the local level, too.

In July, the Miami City Commission approved a proposal to ask voters if they want to impose lifetime term limits on elected officials: two four-year terms as a commissioner and two four-year terms as mayor. The proposal passed 3-2 with Commissioners Christine King and Joe Carollo voting against it.

The proposal will appear on the ballot Nov. 4. It’s an opportunity for the city of Miami to ensure local government is rooted in democratic principles: power should be temporary, and citizens should return to their private life.

Eight years is enough time to enact meaningful policy changes — delivering on campaign promises and tackling problems facing residents. But it’s not so long that elected officials become detached from the community they’re serving.

Unlimited terms create incentives for elected officials to shift from asking, “Does this help my constituents?” to “Does this help me for the next election?”

King, who is critical of the lifetime term limit proposal, called it “too extreme,” arguing that “it takes away choice from my constituents.” Other critics argue that the ballot box is the proper place to limit terms — voters should reject elected officials who stay too long and aren’t serving their constituents.

But there’s a built-in advantage to being an incumbent that can’t be ignored. In 2024, the reelection rate for congressional incumbents was 97% — with some members having been in Congress for over 40 years. That’s not because all those members of Congress are doing such a great job. Americans are deeply unhappy with Congress; a Gallup poll put its approval rate at 26%.

I understand the appeal of staying in public office. Incumbency can be addicting. But government is supposed to work for the people, not the politicians.

Miami Beach has had term limits since 2014, when voters passed a referendum that limited terms to two, four-year terms.

A lifetime limit is the right move for Miami. An eight-year limit is long enough to give elected officials the time to make a meaningful impact on the city but short enough to make sure there is turnover, with room for fresh perspectives.

Miami deserves and needs engaged citizens willing to serve and make tough decisions — and then return to their private lives to live under the policies they pass.

That’s more than good governance. It’s the foundation of representative democracy. Serving on a county or city commission should be a service you do for your community, not a long-term career path.

Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@miamiherald.com