well maybe work on that "re-election advantage", understand and curtail it instead of instuting blanket (and imo insane) bans?
I honestly don't understand? Clearly the problem is incumbency, why are we going after age? It doesn't make much sense.
The law is clearly unconstitutional and would be overturned without a change to that document. And a change to that document won't happen.
But we can make laws to diminish the power of incumbency that would be in complete compliance with all constitutional parameters. I'm not even talking about the constitutionally questionable things like term limits. (Which, clearly, we could also try since people don't care about the constitutionality of the laws apparently.) I mean, why wouldn't we?
Why are we nibbling around the edges? Let's go for the jugular.
The real problem is gerrymandered districts that essentially mean it’s impossible to lose, even if you aren’t doing a good job.
And age is still a separate problem, there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same.
No there isn't.
Both these people will put your society into a world of hurt. They want to serve 20 years. I can guarantee that ain't for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, any more than the district they draw up for themselves to achieve their dream is for the benefit of its constituency.
The ND ban is nothing but ageism.