Serving as county sheriff used to be a family affair in Wisconsin.

Until the 1970s, the state constitution allowed sheriffs to serve no more than two two-year terms in a row.

Many sheriffs figured found a way around the limits. When a sheriff was not allowed to seek re-election, he simply put his wife's name on the ballot.

It nearly always worked. The wife was elected and immediately named her husband chief deputy to run the department. After sitting out for two years, the husband ran in the next election.

The process certainly was not a mystery to anyone, least of all to voters, who wanted to retain the sheriff they knew and liked.

"That went on for years," recalled Jim Cardinal, executive director of the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association.

Wisconsin legislators and voters eventually decided that term limits for sheriffs served no useful purpose -- and they didn't work very well -- and did away with them years ago.

I think it's time for Maine voters to do the same thing with term limits for state representatives and senators. They don't work very well, and they serve no useful purpose.

More importantly, they undermine democracy, depriving voters of the ability to elect the person they want to hold office.

In 1993, Maine voters approved a referendum limiting legislators to four two-year terms in the House and the same number in the Senate. The referendum passed with 68 percent approval.

The chief argument for term limits was that they would prevent entrenched legislators from having overwhelming power at the Capitol. Much of the focus was on then-Rep. John Martin of Eagle Lake, who was elected to the state House of Representatives in 1964 and served 10 terms as speaker of the House.

Term limits forced Martin out of the House, so he ran for the Senate, and was easily elected. Having served two terms in the Senate, Martin is now seeking to return to the House. Does anyone think he won't win?

Martin certainly isn't the only person to work around term limits by moving back and forth between the Maine House and Senate.

Consider Libby Mitchell of Vassalboro, who was first elected to the House in 1974 and served for 10 years. She left the House in 1984 but ran again in 1991. She served eight years, including two as speaker. Term limits forced her from office in 1998.

"I had just really learned the job (of speaker) and, well, my time was up," Mitchell said.

Mitchell was elected to the Senate in 2004 and is now seeking re-election. If elected -- and that seems likely -- she probably will become president of the Senate.

Of course, voters may decide that they don't want Martin or Mitchell or any other candidate to return to the Capitol. No term limit law is required when voters are displeased.

Supporters of term limits argue that incumbents have so much power and so much publicity that it is nearly impossible for even well-qualified opponents to defeat them. There is some merit to the argument, but public financing of political campaigns does much to reduce that disparity. So does the fact that Maine is a small state where voters tend to know or know about the candidates.

Term limits don't bring better government; they make it worse.

They assure that representatives and senators lack the experience and understanding that helps make leaders effective. That is particularly true for committee chairmen and chairwomen who deal with complex legislation. By the time they learn enough about policy issues to become effective lawmakers, their terms end.

I think these arguments call for ending term limits in Maine.

Howard Rich, the chairman of a national organization called U.S. Term Limits, disagrees.

In a telephone interview, Rich, a New Yorker, argued that term limits make government more accountable and less subject to corruption.

Rich said, there is ample evidence that legislators who spend more time in office spend more tax money. "Longer in equals big spenders," he said.

Moreover, Rich says, the executives who lead major corporations have less tenure than many legislators, and the lack of time in office does not seem to prevent them from making decisions.

Government benefits from turnover with fresh faces and fresh ideas, he said.

Voters in New York City approved term limits for mayor and city council in 1993 and again in 1996.

The council has voted to reverse those limits to allow Mayor Michael Bloomberg to seek another term. In an editorial embracing that idea, the New York Times said: "The bedrock of American democracy is the voters' right to choose. Though well intentioned, New York City's term limits law severely limits that right, which is why (the newspaper) has opposed term limits from the outset."

Rich said the term limits organization may challenge the council's actions in court.

I do not suggest that the Maine Legislature overturn the referendum approved by voters in 1993, but it certainly is time for Mainers to reconsider the issue.

David B. Offer is the retired executive editor of the Kennebec Journal and the Morning Sentinel. E-mail davidboffer@hotmail.com.