Few lawmakers enjoy raising funds or campaigning.

They prefer to sit in faraway places, such as Boise and Olympia, and be called “senator” and “representative” by staffers, lobbyists and special interest groups – and allow their constituents to come to them. Some of them lose touch that way, especially those locked into their seats for four and even six years. They’ll argue that they can perform the people’s business better if they didn’t have to look over their shoulders and run for re-election every two years.

Some Idaho legislators are arguing that right now. A bill that would increase the terms of both houses of the Idaho Legislature from two to four years is in the works again, according to the Idaho Statesman. The bill would require two-thirds approval of both houses and popular vote support from Idaho voters to become law. Similar measures have failed twice before in the past 10 years. But insiders told the Statesman that chances for such legislation are better this year.

Oh? What has changed that prompts Idaho lawmakers to believe there’s a clamor for extending their terms? It wasn’t that long ago that they timidly voted to overthrow the will of the people by repealing term limits. Anyone but a politician would read voter sympathy for term limits as a sign that Idahoans are fed up with career politicians and want to have every opportunity to jettison bad ones. The burden of proof is on the lawmakers pushing for this change to produce evidence that their constituents rather than themselves will be better served by embracing the extreme position of four-year terms for all.

In their statements to the Boise newspaper, Idaho lawmakers make three arguments why four-year terms are best: too much posturing goes on during election years; elections are expensive and, therefore, push susceptible legislators into the waiting arms of lobbyists; and the longer terms would allow them to remain focused on their election priorities and what’s best for the state.

If that’s the case, Idahoans should demand to know what important matters have gone begging as a result of their requirement to seek office every two years. Lawmakers seem to have had no trouble in ignoring their responsibility to provide adequate school buildings for Idaho’s children for the past 15 years. They had plenty of time to forge a major tax package behind closed doors a few years ago. And they certainly had time to repeal term limits. In a state ruled by one party, as Idaho is, a more deeply imbedded ruling structure isn’t needed half as much as a stronger minority party to force debate on important issues.

Other factors militating against the change of Idaho terms, which have been in effect since the constitutional convention of 1889-90, are the state’s relatively low turnover rate of 25 percent for lawmakers and the high number of uncontested races. During the last five election cycles, Professor Gary Moncrief of Boise State University told the Idaho Statesman, 40 percent of the legislative races were uncontested.

There is no mandate for Idaho to become the fifth state to award four-year terms to all lawmakers. A good argument can be made that part-time legislators are more accountable if they’re forced to rub elbows with constituents every two years as they travel between county fairs and grange halls.