Wednesday’s organizational meeting of the Legislature featured one surprise — the election of former Rep. Terry Hayes as state treasurer, one of the three “constitutional officers” elected by lawmakers, along with the attorney general and secretary of state. Hayes defeated incumbent treasurer Neria Douglass.

The surprise was that Democrats, with the four independents who caucus with them, had enough votes to return Douglass to office, but chose not to. Enough of them defected to allow Hayes to win; a former Democrat herself, she allowed Republicans to nominate her sensing, correctly, that Douglass’s support wasn’t rocksolid.

How close was this tally? We’ ll never know, because the results come from a secret ballot among legislators. Legislative leaders know the count but, by tradition, don’t make it public.

All in all, this is about as un-transparent as it’s possible for an election to be, and another reason why the current system of indirect elections to these important state offices should change.

The other Democratic nominees fared better. Both Secretary of State Matt Dunlap and Attorney General Janet Mills won new two-year terms. Dunlap was first elected to his post in 2004, and served six years before the interruption of Republican control from 2010-12. If Democrats retain a majority among legislators, he could serve another two terms, or 14 years in all, without ever having the voters review his performance. That’s because the four-term limit applies only to consecutive terms in office.

Now, I happen to think Dunlap has been a good secretary of state, but that’s not the point. The indirect system Maine uses is unique in the entire country. The legislative election of U.S. senators, for instance, was abolished 100 years ago by the 17th Amendment.

Maine has fewer elected statewide officials than almost any other state, and the lack of credible training for the highest and most powerful office of all, that of governor, is painfully apparent.

Yet the current system of constitutional officer selection will continue until someone musters the two-thirds majorities of House and Senate necessary to get necessary constitutional amendment before the voters.

Ordinarily, that would seem all but impossible. The majority party — for most of the last 40 years, the Democrats — will be reluctant to give up this responsibility, particularly because, in practice, it’s such a good way to reward former lawmakers.

Dunlap, Mills, and Hayes are all former House members; Douglass was a senator; normally it’s easier for a representative to be elected because there are so many more. A talent pool consisting solely of a handful of term-limited lawmakers is yet another reason for change.

Yet previous efforts to shift election from lawmakers to voters have all failed. Such bills usually attract strong support from Republicans, but only a handful of Democrats.

What’s different this year can be summed up in the person of Paul LePage. The re-elected Republican governor strongly favors making the three posts elective.

True, the major reason he’s cited is his ongoing feud with Attorney General Mills, but that doesn’t mean the goal is faulty. This is among the few changes LePage has advocated that truly qualifies as reform — making government more effective and accountable.

No one who’s seen LePage’s ability to get his way should underestimate him here, either. One might have thought his denial of federally funded health care to 100,000 Mainers couldn’t possible be outweighed by his insistence on removing, at most, a couple of thousand from welfare rolls, but in the judgment of the voters, it was.

Still, a two- thirds majority is tough. If LePage wants to bring Democrats along, he might have to support an end to, or at least extension of, term limits. The original term limits vote was directed squarely at then-House Speaker John Martin, but also at Democrats generally.

The more legislators automatically retired by term limits, the more chances the minority party has to gain seats. Yet by all reasonable estimates, term limits have failed to improve lawmaking, and denied voters the right to re-elect legislators they value. The absence of experienced legislators is a real hindrance to adopting legislation in areas, such as energy, health care, and education, where expertise is vital.

The Democrats made one feeble attempt to extend term limits to 12 years, sending the question to the voters in 2007 while offering no explanation of its value. Lawmakers could, by simple majority vote, alter or abolish term limits, but unless the two parties agree to do so, it would quickly ignite a backlash.

Electing constitutional officers and relaxing term limits would make an appealing reform package and put voters back where they ought to be — at the heart of our democratic system.

———

Douglas Rooks is a former daily and weekly newspaper editor who has covered the State House for 30 years. He can be reached at [email protected].