Predictably, state House members put on their dancing shoes and moonwalked around the call of their government reform panel for term limits on state legislators.

The Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct was appointed by House Speaker Scott Saiki after two lawmakers were convicted of bribery.

The panel, headed by retired Judge Daniel Foley, voted 4-3 to recommend 16-year term limits for House members and senators — double what governors, mayors and City Council members are subject to.

Despite the generously long terms, House Judiciary Chairman David Tarnas jettisoned the measure, saying it would “prevent good legislators from being able to serve as long as the voters support them.”

“During the last 10 years, 56% of senators and 65% of state representatives were replaced through elections,” Tarnas said. “Voters have already succeeded in limiting the terms of most legislators.”

The claim voters would miss indispensably good legislators is dubious. When was the last time you heard the electorate clamor for a governor, mayor or Council member to be able to serve more than eight years?

The data about high turnover is misleading, as most replaced legislators left to accept other jobs, not because voters turned them out.

Voters seldom get realistic chances to clean house. Most of the time when incumbent legislators seek reelection, they’re insulated by massive special-interest money that discourages competitive challengers; many run unopposed.

Tarnas cited the Foley Commission’s split 4-3 vote and opposition to the measure by the Ethics Commission, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, who said term limits elsewhere haven’t reduced corruption.

But they studied the type of corruption the commission was asked to address: criminal bribe-taking by former Sen. J. Kalani English and former Rep. Ty Cullen.

Term limits aim more at the legalized corruption of our campaign finance system, which allows lawmakers to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from special-interest donors with business before the state.

Some amass money and power over decades, lording over state agencies like personal fiefdoms — often acting out of favoritism or grudge. They have the power to keep themselves nearly the only elected officials in the state not subject to term limits.

Term limits guarantee the system is periodically flushed so nobody attains inordinate money, power or proprietary interest in keeping their positions. Staggered term limits give voters open seats and vigorous competition every election.

There are other good bills still alive to reform campaign financing and expand publicly financed campaigns, but they wouldn’t entirely replace the refreshing benefits of term limits.

A Senate bill for term limits on legislators is technically still alive, but it takes both houses to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, and likely the Senate just let the House be the bad guys first.

Hawaii voters like term limits. They’ve passed constitutional amendments and charter provisions to impose them on elected state executives and most county elected officials, and have firmly rejected efforts to ease the limits.

If legislators respect voters as much as they say, put the constitutional amendment to term-limit them on the ballot so voters can make the call instead of self-serving lawmakers.

Reach David Shapiro at volcanicash@gmail.com.