For once, the Maine Legislature may have done right by stifling bills aimed to improve its accountability, and buttress lawmakers against political pressure.

In smothering LD 1550 and LD 1553, which sought to lengthen the terms of representatives and senators from two years to four, the Legislature wisely stymied a proposal that needs more information, attention, debate and study than possible during this waning session.

Changing legislative terms is a constitutional amendment, which requires voter approval. So if approved, any study would have occurred after Augusta’s din quieted, along the rapid road to referendum.

With their disposal, though, thoughtful study of term lengths is now within lawmaker grasp, which would allow estimates of its impact – Yes, it’ll reduce political pressure! No, it’ll make representation more insulated! – to be replaced by cold facts, hard data, and real knowledge.

Like what’s happening in Vermont.

There, an extensive public process about increasing legislative and gubernatorial term lengths (Vermont has two-year terms for its governors, unique among states) is ongoing, prompted by elected leaders wishing to engage Vermonters in thoughtful discussions about the future form of its government.

Later this year, the Snelling Center for Government at the University of Vermont plans forums, debates, and surveys on the topic of term lengths. Two Vermont senators are pushing the measure, and set deliberations on term lengths within the Senate Government Operations Committee for January, to let the public process run its course.

“Legislators, and all Vermonters, are faced with a fundamental question about our democratic values and what we believe constitutes good governance,” wrote Charlie Smith, president of the Snelling Center, in an op-ed published in the Burlington Free Press. “The decision calls on us to weigh the values of accessibility, accountability, effective management, strategic leadership, and the separation and balance of power to arrive at a best answer.”

Hear, hear.

Vermont’s engagement of citizens in an inspired review of government should inspire Maine, which tried to cram this constitutional debate into session’s end. “We saw this as an important issue,” says Smith. “A civics lesson.”

A lesson, we believe, which Maine legislators should learn. Changing Maine’s democratic structure should receive thorough study prior to legislative consideration, to avoid discordant, rushed assessments.

(And reduce their repetition. Longer terms are touted as curing lawmakers from re-introducing ideas spiked during previous sessions; extending terms, however, was killed two years ago, only now to return again. A comprehensive study of the first bill could have saved the current effort.)

Most applicable to Maine from the Snelling project are its introductory survey results: 65 percent of Vermont residents surveyed were against extending legislative terms to four years; only 28 percent favored the idea.

It begs the question: what would Mainers say?

By killing LD 1550 and LD 1553, lawmakers have given themselves a chance to find out.