Four-Timing the Governor

With unexpected support from legislators of both parties, the amendment extending the terms of high state officers to four years passed the General Court yesterday. If voters endorse the measure next year, they will choose their first four-year state administration in the 1958 Congressional elections.

The best argument against a two-year gubernatorial term will come to life early next year. In January or February Governor Herter, with barely half his term completed, will have to interrupt long-range legislative and administrative plans to commence his quest for re-election. With biennial campaigns the Governor may never plan without a cautious appraisal of the electorate. Beneficial long-run projects which might win immediate disfavor must go to the wastebasket. Only with four-year tenure can the Governor develop for the General Court the coherent and integrated plans that are prerequisite for far-sighted legislation.

Some voters may spurn four-year terms, feeling that as planner and administrator the Governor and cabinet should stand frequent tests of public confidence. Yet biennial legislative elections provide abundant popular guidance since the General Court limits and supplements the Governor's program by approving, modifying, or rejecting his proposals. The four-year term would enhance, rather than cripple public control: with four years' aging, the flaws and virtues of a state administration would become more apparent.

The theoretical advantages of a four-year term have demonstrated themselves in practice. In the past twelve years five states have adopted four year terms for the governor, while none of the twenty-eight with quadrennial elections has chosen to revert to two year tenure. Voters in Massachusetts also should provide their Governor and state officials next year with the temporary insulation from politics that will enable them to work more efficiently.