Missouri voters will notice a lot of new names on the primary ballot this year. In fact, 75 incumbent state representatives and 12 state senators cannot run for re-election this time out.

For the first time, Missouri's term limits law--passed by voter referendum in 1992 will force those legislators to give up their seats, whether their constituents believe it's a good idea or not.

Ten years ago, limiting legislative terms was a fad whose time had come--not just in Missouri but in several states. Term limits were going to solve the "good ole boy" dilemma in the state capital and get fresh new faces in state government. It would force career politicians from office, thus getting rid of those veteran legislators who were betraying the public trust and yielding to undue influence from special interests.

Now we'll get a chance to see if term limits are such a great idea. People often do things that have unintended consequences. Term limits may prove to be one of those things. Sure, putting limits on legislative terms will turn scoundrels out of office sooner rather than perhaps later. But limits also get rid of dedicated, experienced lawmakers. It's a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

And experience helps when it comes to threading a bill through the legislative maze in the Missouri General Assembly. Issues need to be studied in a wide context; coalitions have to be constructed; compromises need to be hammered out. Spending citizens' tax money wisely levies a terrific responsibility on lawmakers.

Come 2003, at least 87 green legislators will take their seats. Most will have few clues as to what is going on. But they will find a willing bureaucracy ready to guide them along serpentine paths.

Through legislative term limits, we may have created a Trojan Horse of agency influence, as we see inexperienced legislators turn to bureaus, agencies and departments for guidance. If this happens, it will indirectly shift the balance of governmental power away from the legislature and hand it to the executive branch of state government.

And guidance may not be all executive departments have to offer. Elected politicians now know they will lose their jobs in a few years, as term limits reach out and tap them on the shoulders. What if state agencies dangle plums of high-paying positions once these lawmakers complete their political terms?

What effect would job security of that sort have on the way legislators vote? Would they have the courage to vote against an agency's pet program, when that agency might well be their next employer? State bureaucrats--not elected and not directly accountable to voters--may become even more powerful in state government.

It will be interesting to watch how things shake out between now and the 2004 election. Of course, some representatives may decide to run for senator and vice versa. State law, even with term limits, allows a person to serve 8 years in either chamber of the general assembly. But rookie lawmakers in either body will not have the experience and political sense of veteran legislators.

After watching how imposed term limits work for a term or two, we voters may decide we'd be better off without them. After all, Missourians have had real term limits for more than 180 years: They are called free elections.