In this November’s election, Baltimore City voters will consider the critical question of whether City officials should be subject to limits that would fix the terms of Mayor, City Council President, City Council Members, and Comptroller to no more than two consecutive full terms.

While this measure (listed as Question K) is no panacea for good governance in a city with abundant challenges, it is a significant step in the right direction. The City Charter, just like an organization’s bylaws or the Constitution of the United States, establishes the rules by which individuals and institutions will interact in the system. It doesn’t guarantee good behavior, but it should establish a framework of incentives and mechanisms that allows for freely contested power, competent governance, equal access, transparency, and responsiveness.

It should be no surprise that Question K was able to get on the ballot. Term limits are publicly appealing, while their main opponents tend to be incumbents and special interests. Those are the groups that usually have the most to lose from such measures. They have a direct interest in maintaining the status quo. As Lawrence Reed states, “Opponents of term limits are frequently the same interests who milk government for all they can get.”[1]

This is not an indictment of any specific incumbent or lobbyist, but citizens should want these interests to be challenged. It should be difficult for them to obtain and maintain power and influence. Structured disruption can be a true force for participatory government, especially at the local level.

The approval of Question K would be a healthy development for Baltimore City. It will challenge entrenched interests, encourage new voices to engage in City governance through regular turnover, and build structures to make county government less stagnant and ossified.