From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Term Limits Initiative
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.100034.18413@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:
>Robert J. Hall asks:
>| With the (presumed) passage of the Washington Term Limits initiative, I was
>| wondering about the prospects of this law being overturned in the courts?
>|
>| Anybody have a clue?
>
>Paul Kemp (pkemp@byron.u.washington.edu) responds:
>| Without a doubt it will go to the courts and be overturned.
>| I think Bush himself said it would take an admendment.
>
>  As a long time supporter of Common Cause and other "good government"
>  groups and causes, I was happy to see the term-limits initiatives pass 
>  in all 14 states that voted on them yesterday.  Now that the ice has
>  been broken, expect many more states to follow. 

Does Common Cause actually support term limits? Usually they have more
sense than that.

This should have been said before the election (and I did say it a year
ago), but term limits are aimed at other people's congressmen. You always
have the option to vote against your own. And that is effective term limits.
And before you whine about the political structure, bear in mind that you
can work to challenge the internal structure of political parties. Look
at what the religious right has accomplished in the Washington Republican
Party. It does take action and responsibility on your part.

>  The Washington term limits initiative, along with most of the other
>  term-limits proposals, stands on firm legal ground.
>
>  It was carefully written to withstand a constitutional test.  Notice
>  the wording in the title of Initiative 573:
>
>          Shall candidates for certain offices, who have already
>          served for a specified time periods in those offices,
>          BE DENIED BALLOT ACCESS.
>
>  This is not an outright ban on an entrenched incumbent being able to run 
>  for office.  It simply denies them access to the printed ballot for a 
>  short period of time.  They can still run as write-in candidates and
>  retain their seats.
>
>  The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 4, clearly gives the States 
>  the power to regulate congressional elections:
>
>          1. The times, places and *manner* of holding elections
>          for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in
>          each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress
>          may at any time by law make or alter such regulations,
>          except as to the place of choosing Senators.
>          
>  The Supreme Court has continually confirmed the rights of states to
>  limit ballot access in cases much more questionable than this one.      

A reasonable interpretation of the phrase "times, places, and manner" is
that states can hold congressional elections when and where they want,
want, and can dictate the method by which you vote. While this version,
unlike previous attempts, does not actually bar anyone from holding a
seat in Congress, which is clearly unconstitutional, it does restrict
ballot access. And equal ballot access has been set forth as a right.
(I would be very interested in seeing citations of the "questionable"
ballot access restrictions. And, please, don't use anything from before
1965.) 

>  However, the last line also empowers Congress to override any such
>  election regulation by a simple majority.  So Tom Foley has another
>  weapon to defeat it -- but this requires Congress to expressly
>  override the will of the people and suffer the consequences.

The will of the people tends to change. It should be interesting to
see people's reactions when these restrictions actually kick in, and
they realize that this actually applies to their own congressman, who
they like and want back.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham