Whether or not it's an election-driven suggestion to portray himself as a reformer, Gov. Ed Rendell is suggesting that he now supports term limits for state lawmakers. In addition to term limits, Rendell told a Pittsburgh newspaper last week that he also would like to see the size of the state legislature reduced and believes that redistricting should be taken out of the hands of the General Assembly.

Though he initially supported the legislative pay-raise package, Rendell now says he made a mistake in signing the controversial pay-raise law in July 2005. The firestorm following the controversial legislative pay-raise vote at 2 a.m. on July 7, 2005, continues to dog most elected officials in Harrisburg.

In another, and possibly related, change of heart, Rendell says that state lawmakers should be limited to eight to 10 years in Harrisburg.

It's a common-sense viewpoint. The governor is term-limited; why not limit the time state lawmakers can serve? Terms limits might help in changing the culture of a legislature where most people seem more driven by a desire to stay in their jobs for as long as possible rather than a desire to do what's right.

A term-limited lawmaker would presumably not be as concerned about boosting his or her pension benefits as current lawmakers did with the pension-grab vote of 2001. Term-limited lawmakers would presumably receive much more modest pension and retirement benefits because they would only serve a limited number of years.

Term-limited lawmakers might also try to get something accomplished in the finite number of years they are permitted to remain in office. As it stands now, even if a lawmaker comes to Harrisburg with specific goals or objectives that he or she wants to see enacted into law, the consistent re-election year-after-year breeds an atmosphere of procrastination. Since the vast majority of lawmakers are re-elected for as long as they desire, there is no sense of urgency to get anything accomplished.

So, term limits is an appealing component for reforming the legislature. It's good that Rendell has introduced the topic for voters to consider. He should go further.

Across the nation, just 15 states have term limits for legislators. In most of those states, term limits arose through voter initiative. That path to becoming law makes sense. Following the more conventional path, the law would have to be approved by the very state lawmakers whose terms would be limited by the law. Given human nature, how likely is it for people to essentially vote to put themselves out of work within a few years?

It will be interesting to see if Rendell expands on his idea and explains to voters how he envisions term limits becoming law in Pennsylvania.

This is critical because Pennsylvania law does not allow voter-generated initiatives. Unlike 26 other states where ballot referendums can come from citizens, Pennsylvania lawmakers have locked citizens out of the process.

In Pennsylvania, the only path to a voter referendum getting on the ballot is through the state legislature.

So, if Rendell is suggesting reforms to improve the way the General Assembly works, including term limits, he should explain how such changes would occur.

For now, the best method of term limits is the old-fashioned kind: voting out of office the most entrenched incumbents, particularly party leaders.

While it's interesting to hear Rendell talk about reform, the reality is that voters hold the key to bringing change to Harrisburg.

Replacing most veteran lawmakers is a good place to start. The current crop of Harrisburg lawmakers has demonstrated that without new lawmakers in place, meaningful change is impossible.