BRADFORD, Vermont (STPNS) -- Last year, the New Hampshire House rejected a proposed amendment to the state?s constitution that would extend the term of office for governor from two years to four years. As the Vermont Legislature reconvenes this month, the Senate will almost certainly undertake discussion about the Green Mountain State?s two-year term for governor and other statewide officials.

New Hampshire and Vermont are unique in that they are the only two states in the country with two-year terms for their governors. The debate over term lengths for lawmakers isn?t new. There is perennial discussion in both state capitals on the subject but with no success for the term length extension proponents. So, why continue to talk about it?



To be sure, there is a raft of powerful objections to extending the term lengths for lawmakers and statewide elected officials. Significantly, voters in northern New England pride themselves on the level of electoral power they exercise over their political leaders. One frequent argument against the four-year term is the loss or reduction in voters? ability to hold their officials accountable.

Changing the governors? and legislators? term lengths would also require amendments to both state constitutions?a measure that should not be taken lightly. The process is complex, lengthy and somewhat rarely undertaken. Both states place strict navigational requirements for amendments to get out of the legislature before being submitted directly to the voters for approval. According to the Vermont State Archives, since1880, there have been 174 proposals to amend the state constitution. Just 26 of those eventually surpassed all barriers on their way to ratification.

Finally, the two-year term lengths reflect the small size of both states. Commentators in New Hampshire and Vermont have often cited that two-year term lengths could not work in larger states where governors and other officials need time to effectively grasp the dynamics of executive operations. Indeed, the two-year term can almost be viewed as badge of New Hampshire?s and Vermont?s rugged independence from our union partners mired in bureaucratic bloat.  

But clinging to tradition isn?t the sole, or even a worthy, measure of a state?s individuality. And we should welcome expanded discussion of the subject beyond the statehouses.

As others have noted before us, both New Hampshire and Vermont are no longer the same states they once were and the demands and expectations of our leaders are far different now than in, say, the 19th century.

It seems appropriate, as we wave farewell to another first-in-the-nation presidential primary cycle, to remind ourselves that incessant politicking and ceaseless fund-rasing probably do more than anything else to exacerbate division and partisanship. Expanding term lengths will increase the duration that passes between campaigning; and add meaning and importance to each election cycle and perhaps reinforce enfranchisement.