One Reward Is Enough; Vote 'no' On Proposal 5

ARE STATE legislators undiíly penalized from seeking other elective offices? We think not, and that's why we recommend a "no" vote on Proposal No. 5 on the election ballot. An affirmative vote would allow legislators to run for other state elective offices during the term they are serving in the Legislature. iThe Constitution prohibits that sort of thing, wisely we think. Some opponents will argüe that the constitutional provisión was put in to prevent legislators from creating offices for themselves and then seeking election or appointment to those offices. That may be a relevant argument, but it seems a trifle dated. Lawmakers are more subtle than that argument generally implies. They still are "claim jumpers" but it's not as though the legislators have their own built-in spoils system. Then, too, sometimes the :laim jumping backfires. UPWARD MOBILITY is not ex:essively difficult for legislators. rhey already hold an advantage by virtue of holding office, and of having used their positions of trust in ways that reflect favorably upon themselves. The fact that they no longer enjoy the incumbency designation on the ballot is a strong argument for not returning to any system or procedure which greases the skids for an incumbent. We don't feel the legislators deserve this extra consideration for another reason. This year they created a state officers compensation study commission, which our Lansing bureau chief tells us leans toward higher salaries for lawmakers. This is reward enough for one year. Naturally, we're not opposed to the concept of legislators running for higher elective office. We do think, however, they should compete on even terms with their challengers. Proposal No. 5 only facilitates the claim jumper, the "sooners" who spot greener pastures and jump the gun to get there. A "no" vote on Proposal 5 will be in line with what the last two Constitutional Conventions had in mind all along.