Denver Post, October 5, 1996
Term Limits Debate
Amendment 12 forces them to listen
DENNIS POLHILL
In May 1995, they overturned laws in 23 states and invalidated the votes of over 25 million Americans. They subverted the will of the people and used the Constitution, designed to protect individual rights, to protect an isolated ruling class of career politicians living in Washington, D.C. This is not the government that the Founders envisioned. It is a government of political insiders, career politicians, special-interest lobbyists and government bureaucrats. Term limits are the only way for the people to take their government back and reinstitute a citizen congress.
The need for congressional term limits did not end with the Republican revolution of 1994. The national debt continues to grow at over $500 million every day. Every new baby inherits a $20,000 debt that is increasing by over $1,000 a year. Taxpayers will shell out over $100 million this year for congressional pensions at the same time that the people’s Social Security system is going bankrupt. Former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, who pleaded guilty to scamming taxpayers of over $600,000, will collect close to $100,000 in congressional pensions while in prison. Already, Congress has found a way to circumvent the newest amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting them from giving themselves pay raises. The free mail privilege alone averages $400,000 per member of Congress, which far exceeds the total raised by an average challenger. Newt Gingrich is no more in favor of term limits than was Tom Foley. The privilege, perks, pensions and power make it impossible for Congress to reform itself. The only way that a corrupt political system can be reformed is by the people.
It is absurd that Congress should be without term limits. The president, 40 governors, 21 state legislatures, and at least 20,000 local elected officials already have term limits.
The move for congressional term limits began in Colorado in 1990 with Terry Considine. Colorado approved congressional term limits again in 1994. By 1995, 23 states had passed congressional term limits. When Congress voted on term limits, they chose to ignore the fact that 17 of the 23 states supported limits of three terms in the House and two in the Senate (or 3/2 limits). Clearly, the Republican Congress was no more enthusiastic about real term limits than was the Democratic Congress.
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the votes of 25 million Americans, they did not say term limits were a bad idea. They said the qualifications for members of Congress enumerated in the Constitution were “exclusive.” Thus, states do not have the right to impose additional qualifications and the terms of Congress members may be limited only by amending the U.S. Constitution. The career politicians in Washington, D.C., and the pundits were quick to declare that the term-limits movement was dead.
The dozens of term-limits organizations across America regrouped, formed a new battle plan and retrenched. The only way to amend the U.S. Constitution is for 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment. Because proposed amendments are typically drafted by Congress, the dilemma is clear. Extraordinary methods must be devised to overcome Congress’ conflict of interest.
Amendment 12 is an “instruct and inform” initiative. Similar measures are on the ballot in 13 other states. The next amendment to the U.S. Constitution is spelled out in the initiative. State and federal elected officials are “instructed” to do everything in their power to pass the congressional term-limits amendment. The instructions are listed clearly so there can be no confusion (i.e., must vote in favor, must second a motion, etc.)
If an elected official fails to follow the people’s “instruction,” then the people will be “informed” by words next to candidates’ names on the ballot next time they run for election. It will say, “Disregarded voter instruction on term limits.” Ballot information is not as unusual as it sounds. Ballot information is used to indicate party affiliation so that voters can make informed choices. Candidates who petition onto the ballot are usually so designated to provide information to voters. Between 1905 and 1908, 15 states used ballot information to encourage state legislators to choose the U.S. senator who was desired by the people. (Prior to the 17th Amendment, U.S. senators were chosen by respective state legislatures. After the 17th Amendment was ratified, use of ballot information became unnecessary and faded into obscurity.)
When the Founders drafted the U.S. Constitution, they wisely recognized that there would be issues in conflict with the self-interest of Congress. If Congress refused to act, they provided an alternative method by which the states could draft an amendment: by applying for an amendment-proposing convention. Whether the congressional term-limits amendment comes from Congress or a convention, the work of drafting is small because it is already written and may not be changed.
Congress will never act on term limits without pressure from the people. Amendment 12 is the only way that the people will get real term limits on Congress. Vote YES on 12.
Dennis Polhill is treasurer of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition.
No on 12 it’s bait and switch
JACK FRIED
Initiative 12, deceptively titled Congressional Term Limits, is an example of the old “bait and switch” tactic. This ballot initiative is both dangerous and misleading. The proponents have hidden in the middle of 11 lines of small print an instruction for our state legislators to “apply for an amendment-proposing convention.” This convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution is commonly known as a constitutional convention. Your “yes” vote would authorize the first and only federal constitutional convention since 1787. In that setting, the U.S. Constitution would be subject to changes far beyond the scope of this initiative.
A constitutional convention (con-con) can be called only by your state legislators, and passage of this initiative would coerce them to do so. If they see the danger of a con-con and refuse to call one, at the next election the phrase “against term limits” would be added to their name on the ballot. This tactic unfairly brands the incumbent with an anti-term-limit “scarlet letter” when in fact they would be against calling a federal constitutional convention.
Out-of-state sources account for 98 percent of the funding for this initiative. A majority of the $115,000 spent in Colorado came from U.S. Term Limits,a Washington, D.C., lobbying group. In fact, professional petition circulators were paid $1 per signature to get Initiative 12 on the ballot. Citizens against Constitution Tampering conducted a sample poll in metro Denver of individuals who signed this petition. Only 6 percent knew the initiative called for a constitutional convention, and 84 percent said they would not have signed the petition if they had known!
The proponents have made every attempt to hide this convention call from the voters, including an intense lobbying effort at the state Capitol. The preliminary draft of the voter’s guide did not mention the constitutional convention at all. Only through the efforts of a few dedicated individuals was this travesty finally exposed at the hearings on ballot initiatives.
The local Colorado Term Limit Coalition has persuaded a handful of other organizations to join their cause by assuring them that they, too, are not in favor of a constitutional convention but are only using it to force Congress into passing a term-limits amendment. This is false logic. They know fully well that this old tactic does not work. In the most recent attempt, 32 states applied for a con-con to force a balanced-budget amendment. As in previous attempts, Congress took no action. Three states have since rescinded their call as they recognized the dangerous position this country was placed in. Some coalition members are now having second thoughts as well.
The real goal is an unlimited constitutional convention. The method is to deceive the voters of Colorado. Now that the word is out, the proponents of Initiative 12 have changed their tactics. They assure you that a convention could be limited to only a term-limits amendment. When challenged with expert opinion that the Constitution would be vulnerable to a complete rewrite, they ridicule the concern, claiming that three-fourths of the states (38) would still be required to ratify any amendments, preventing any mischief.
All ridicule aside, distinguished constitutional law scholars from leading universities such as Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame and others agree that a federal convention cannot be limited to one subject. Former U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: “Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new constitutional convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn….” Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg stated: “It is my firm belief that no single issue or combination of issues is so important as to warrant jeopardizing our entire constitutional system of governance at this point in history.”
There is no guarantee that the 38-state ratification process would remain. The only precedent we have is the original 1787 convention in which delegates changed the voting rules for ratification from unanimous to three-fourths of the state legislatures. What would prevent a current convention from further reducing this requirement to two-thirds or less?
Even their “bait,” the term-limits argument, is full of traps. Under their term-limits amendment, about half of the Senate and a third of Congress will be perpetual lame ducks. With the incentive of re-election gone, and with the acquired taste of the power and privilege of government office, appointed positions in the executive branch will be very attractive. It would be to the self-interest of a lame-duck Congress member to support the executive branch in order to ensure a future in the government bureaucracy.
Our power at the ballot box is the most effective way to limit congressional terms. The real solution to the problems enumerated by the proponents of this fraudulent initiative is not their brand of term limits, but responsible and educated voters. Vote NO on Initiative 12, the term limits con-con con!
Jack Fried is chairman of Citizens Against Constitution Tampering