Term-Limit Initiative A Notion That Won’t Go Away Two Previous Attempts Failed, But Initiative 670 Takes New Approach

If term-limit proposals were a sporting event, Initiative 670 would be the rubber match in a best two-out-of-three playoff.

There have been two previous proposals to somehow knock long-serving members of the U.S. House and Senate out of their jobs. The first one failed in 1992; the second passed a year later.

Because initiatives are laws and not ballgames, that would have been the end of it if the U.S. Supreme Court had not ruled in 1995 that term-limit proposals in Washington and 22 other states were unconstitutional.

States cannot, by themselves, place limits on Congress, which is governed solely by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the court said. They require a constitutional amendment.

Initiative 670 tries to force - opponents say coerce - members of Congress and the Legislature into approving such an amendment in the two ways spelled out in the Constitution.

It first directs Washington’s congressional delegation to support an amendment that limits new members to serving three terms in the House and two in the Senate. Those already serving would be eligible for one less term.

Those who don’t vote for such a proposal would be “marked” when they face reelection. Next to their name on the ballot would be the notation: “Disregarded Voter Instruction on Term Limits.”

Challengers would be asked to sign a pledge to support term limits. If they declined, that would be printed next to their name on the ballot.

If Congress musters the needed support for the amendment, it would be sent to the state legislatures, and would become law if three-fourths of the states approved it.

Any Washington legislator who voted against ratifying the amendment would face a similar notation next to his or her name at reelection time.

Supporters of the initiative don’t trust Congress to enact tough term limits, despite this penalty.

“A vote for term limits is a vote to limit the power, perks, privileges and careers of members of Congress,” said John Sonneland, a Spokane physician who is chairman of the initiative campaign.

Although both houses considered various term-limits proposals over the last two years, many allowed longer service in the House of Representatives, and none ever collected the needed votes to go to the states for ratification.

Initiative 670 takes an extra step in trying to force the states into calling a constitutional convention if Congress fails to pass an amendment despite the ballot penalties. The U.S. Constitution allows for such a convention if two-thirds of the states called for it.

Such a convention hasn’t been held since 1787, when the current Constitution was drafted. The prospect of another such gathering has groups from the John Birch Society to the League of Women Voters and from the Spokane County Republican Party to the American Civil Liberties Union united against I-670.

A constitutional convention could go far beyond term limits to a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution, they argue. The initiative says “call a convention for proposing amendments” - and that could cover topics far beyond term limits, the opponents warn.

“No cause, however worthy, justifies opening up Pandora’s box to those who may think they are the modern day version of James Madison,” said Cathy Mickels, president of the state Eagle Forum.

Washington state - which threw out six incumbent congressmen in 1994, including the first House speaker to be defeated in 154 years - does not need any extra help in changing its delegation when it wants, opponents add.

Supporters are countering by trying to link term limits to fiscal restraint.

“Junior members repeatedly vote for less spending and lower taxes,” said David Keating, executive director of the National Taxpayers Union, a Washington, D.C.-based group which is endorsing the state initiative.

Counters Alice Stolz of the League of Women Voters: “That initiative has absolutely nothing in it that requires any reduction in staff or perks or pensions or spending. Inexperienced freshmen could just as easily rely more on experienced staffers and experienced lobbyists.”

, DataTimes