Dennis Polhill

DENVER BUSINESS JOURNAL Denver, CO, October 30, 1998

Colorado needs term limits

When asked, the majority of congressmen and senators in Washington will profess their strong support of term limits. In fact, ironically, many of these same politicians campaign on their support of term limits and a citizen legislature election after election after election — on their way to a very long career in Washington.

Year after year, the careerist United States Congress has shown that it will not impose term limits on its members. Of course, member promise their constituents they will vote for term limits, but often self-interest — not to mention the nice office and six-figure salary are just too much to walk away from. So instead, every year Congress institutes a series of procedural maneuvers to guarantee members the opportunity to get on the record supporting some type of term limits, while all along ensuring that term limits will never pass Congress.

In response to this refusal of Congress to pass a term limits law, the Colorado Term Limits Coalition has placed on the ballot an initiative (Amendment 18) that serves as an important step in taking Congress back from career politicians.

This initiative, known as the Voluntary Congressional Term Limit Declaration Act, will allow candidates for Congress to sign a declaration limiting their own term in office. When the law is passed, every candidate for Congress will be offered a declaration stating they will serve no more than three terms in the U.S. House of Representative or two terms in the Senate. This will be strictly voluntary. If a candidate does not wish to sign, there will be no requirement to do so. This information, at the candidate’s request, will then be placed on the ballot to inform voters of that candidate’s personal position and actual intentions on term limits. When the Amendment 18 passes voters will he able to distinguish between those candidates who intend to limit their own terms and serve as citizen legislators and those who do not.

Amendment 18 is needed because many voters believe candidates cannot be trusted to honor their promises on term limits once they go to Washington. Unfortunately this public distrust has proven to be extremely well placed. Here in Colorado, Congressman Scott McInnis, who initially promised voters that he would serve only four terms, has now stated publicly that he probably will break the term limit promise to his constituents. This despite polls that consistently show voters prefer candidates who agree to self-limit their tenure in Washington by an overwhelming margin of seven to one.

Furthermore, many Americans, from all political spectrums, feel they are not represented in Congress. They are tired of politicians who say one thing to the voters and do something entirely different once in Washington. They are tired of having representatives who are more receptive to special interests bearing donations, than they are to the concerns of their constituents.

Despite the overwhelming support of term limits in Colorado, there are only two elected officials who have already agreed to self limit — Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Bob Schaffer. But the voters have already exhibited their support of term limits In the 6th Congressional District Republican primary, a candidate who signed a pledge to limit his tenure to three terms in Congress upset the favorite who had publicly stated he would not agree to limit his tenure if elected.

Notwithstanding this support of term limits, some naysayers still exist. Opponents of term limits will claim that we need more experience and longevity to look out for the interests of Colorado. But this is an elitist attitude that many career politicians hold, that assumes that Colorado voters don’t know what they are voting for. Three times this decade, Colorado voters have passed term limits initiatives. Coloradans have made it abundantly clear. They want citizen legislators not career politicians.

Here in Colorado, our U S. senators and representatives are the only officeholders not subject to term limits. Every attempt by the voters of Colorado to do what Congress won’t do itself – pass Congressional term limit has been thwarted by unelected judges.

Amendment 18 is an important step towards getting rid of career politicians. By informing voters of the term limits position of candidates for Congress, voters are able to make a more informed decision on what type of candidates they want in Congress – a citizen legislator who will limit their tenure in Congress or a career politician. Sending term-limit supporters to Congress will bring better, more responsive representation to Colorado citizens. And ultimately, Amendment 18 will bring Coloradans what nearly 70 percent of Colorado voters have repeatedly said they desire — Congressional term limits.

Dennis Polhill is the co-chairman of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition.

Delta County Independent, October 28, 1998 

Support voluntary term limits

Dear Editor: I am writing to encourage your readers to support the Voluntary Term Limits Declaration (Amendment 18). Amendment 18 would give each candidate for U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate the opportunity to sign a pledge stating they would serve no more than three terms in the House or two terms in the Senate. Then, at the candidate’s request, this information would be placed on the ballot.

Why do we need this initative? It is very simple. Three times already this decade Colorado voters have indicated they want term limits for Congress. Yet the courts have continually frustrated the will of Colorado voters by striking down term limits for federal officials. This leaves us with an odd situation where our congressmen and senators are the only elected officials in Colorado without term limits. Amendment 18 is the best method to achieve what the voters of Colorado want – term limits for Congress.

Dennis PohillCo-chairmanColorado TermLimits Coalition

DELTA COUNTY INDEPENDENTDelta, CO, October, 28, 1998

Clear Creek Courant, October 28, 1998

‘Yes’ on term limits Amendment No. 18

To the Editor: I am writing to encourage your readers to support the Voluntary Term Limits Declaration (Amendment 18).

Amendment 18 would give each candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate the opportunity to sign a pledge stating they would serve no more than three terms in the House or two terms in the Senate. Then, at the candidate‘s request, this information would be placed on the ballot. But no matter what the candidate’s position on term limits is, the designation would be strictly voluntary.

Why do we need this initiative? It is very simple. Three times already this decade Colorado voters have indicated they want term limits for Congress. In fact there is over 70 percent voter support of Congressional term limits in Colorado. Yet the courts have continuously frustrated the will of Colorado voters by striking down term limits for federal officials.

This leaves us with an odd situation where our Congressmen and Senators are the only elected officials in Colorado without term limits.

Amendment 18 is the best method to achieve what the voters of Colorado want —term limits for Congress.

On Nov. 3, vote “Yes” on Amendment 18. DENNIS POLHILL Co-chairman Colorado Term Limits Coalition Golden

CLEAR CREEK COURANT Idaho Spring, Co, October 28, 1998

Citizen Telegraph, Rifle, Colorado, October 28, 1998

 Readers support Amendment 18

 Dear Editor:

 I am writing to encourage your readers to support the Voluntary Term Limits Declaration (Amendment 18).  Amendment 18 would give each candidate for U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate the opportunity to sign a pledge stating they would serve no more than 3 terms in the House or 2 in the Senate.  Then, at the candidate’s request, this information would be placed on the ballot.  But, no matter what the candidate’s position on term limits is, the designation would be strictly voluntary. 

 Why do we need this initiative?  It is very simple.  Three times already this decade Colorado voters have indicated they want term limits for Congress.  In fact there is over 70% voter support of congressional term limits in Colorado.  Yet the courts have continually frustrated the will of Colorado voters by striking down term limits for federal officials.  This leaves us with an odd situation where our Congressmen and Senators are the only elected officials in Colorado without term limits.  Amendment 18 is the best method to achieve what the voters of Colorado what – term limits for Congress.  On November 3^rd, Vote Yes on Amendment 18. 

Dennis Polhill,

Co-Chairman

Colorado Term Limits Coalition

DENVER POST, Denver, Colorado, October, 27, 1998

Politicians ignore voters’ call for term limits

The Denver Post’s editorial against Amendment 18 (“Vote no on term limits,” Oct. 19) was disappointing in that it missed the mark on term limits and the history of Colorado’s support for limiting politicians’ terms.

In 1994, Colorado voter‘s passed a six-year limit for members of the U.S. House of Representatives. We again voted in 1996 for these limits. What do we have to do to get elected officials to listen to our desire for term limits? Perhaps passing term 1imits a fourth time will do it.

Colorado has been well-represented in Congress with people like Bill Armstrong and Tim Wirth who did not stay forever. Even without representatives of their stature, the Founders protected small states from being overpowered by states like California, by establishing a Congress with two separate Houses.

It is arrogant to assume that “on-the-job” training is the only type of experience applicable to serving in office. Most Coloradans agree that businessmen, teachers and even journalists would bring a different type of experience to office that would be beneficial. In 1996, the Maine state legislature was made up almost entirely of new members. Former politicians, lobbyists, and journalists predicted a chaotic legislature due to ‘inexperience.” Yet somehow those ‘inexperienced” members were able to pass the budget on time for the first time in 20 years.

Colorado voters have supported term limits initiatives three times already this decade. We prefer citizen legislators to long-serving career politicians. Amendment 18 is a significant step toward achieving that goal for members of Congress. Vote YES on term limits. Vote YES on Amendment #18.

DENNIS POLHILL, co-chair, Colorado Term Limits Coalition

The Gazette Telegraph, Colorado Springs Colorado October 26, 1998

Term limits – a voluntary approach?

Yes: Voters already said they want it

By Dennis Polhill

When asked, the majority of congressmen and senators in Washington will profess their strong support of term limits. In fact, ironically, many of these same politicians campaign on their support of term limits and a citizen legislature election after election after election — on their way to a very long career in Washington.

Year after year, the careerist Congress has shown that it will not impose term limits on its members. Of course, they promise to vote for term limits, but often self-interest — not to mention the nice office and six-figure salary — are just too much to walk away from.

So instead, every year Congress institutes a series of procedural maneuvers to guarantee members the opportunity to get on the record supporting some type of term limits, while all along ensuring that term limits will never pass Congress.

In response to this refusal of Congress to pass a term limits law, the Colorado Term Limits Coalition has placed on the ballot an initiative (Amendment 18) that serves as an important step to taking our Congress back from career politicians.

This initiative, known as the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act, will allow candidates for Congress to take a declaration limiting their own term in office. When the law is passed, every candidate for Congress will be offered a declaration stating they will serve no more than three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. This will be strictly voluntary.

If a candidate does not wish to sign, there will be no requirement to do so. This information, at the candidate’s request, will then be placed on the ballot to inform voters of that candidate’s personal position and actual intentions on term limits. When Amendment 18 passes, voters will be able to distinguish between those candidates who intend to limit their own terms and serve as citizen legislators and those who do not.

Amendment 18 is needed because many voters believe candidates cannot be trusted to honor their promises on term limits once they go to Washington. Unfortunately this public distrust has proven to be painfully true. Here in Colorado, a congressman who initially promised to only serve four terms has now indicated publicly that he might break that promise. This despite polls that consistently show voters prefer candidates who agree to self-limit their tenure in Washington by an overwhelming margin of 7 to 1.

Furthermore, many Americans, from all political spectrums, feel they are not represented in Congress. They are tired of politicians who say one thing to the voters and do something entirely different once in Washington. They are tired of having representatives who are more receptive to special interests bearing donations than they are to the concerns of their constituents.

In spite of the overwhelming support of term limits in Colorado, there are only two federally elected officials who have already agreed to self-limit – Senator Wayne Allard and Congressman Bob Schaffer. But the voters have already exhibited their support of term limits. In the 6th Congressional District Republican primary, a candidate who signed a pledge to limit his tenure to three terms in Congress upset the favorite who had publicly stated he would not agree to limit his tenure if elected.

Despite this support of term limits, some naysayers still exist. Opponents of term limits will claim that we need experience and longevity to look out for the interests of Colorado. But this is an elitist attitude that many career politicians hold, that assumes that Colorado voters don’t know what they are voting for. Three times this decade, Colorado voters have passed term limits initiatives. Coloradans have made it abundantly clear. They want citizen legislators, not career politicians.

Here in Colorado, our U.S. senators and representatives are the only officeholders not subject to term limits. Every attempt by the voters of Colorado to do what Congress won’t do to itself — pass congressional term limits — has been thwarted by unelected judges.

Amendment 18 is an important step towards getting rid of career politicians. By informing voters of the term limits position of candidates for Congress, voters are able to make a more informed decision on what type of candidate they want in Congress — a citizen legislator who will limit their tenure in Congress or a career politician.

Sending term-limit supporters to Congress will bring better, more responsive representation to Colorado citizens. And ultimately, Amendment 18 will bring Coloradans what nearly 70 percent of Colorado voters have repeatedly said they desire — congressional term limits.

Polhill is the co-chairman of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition.

No: It curbs our choices

By Robert D. Loevy

Once again the issue of term limits is making an appearance in the state of Colorado. I am referring to the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits initiative that will be on our ballot Nov. 3. This particular version of the ever-returning proposal provides that candidates for the U.S. House and Senate may note on the ballot their voluntary acceptance of term limits.

There was a time when term limits could be defended on a partisan basis. Prior to 1994, the Democratic Party controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for multiple decades, starting with the congressional elections of 1954. Republican strategists, desperate to break the apparent Democratic stranglehold on the House, came up with term limits as the solution to the problem. If incumbent Democratic legislators were forced by constitutional fiat to leave office after six or eight years, the thinking went, the Republicans would have a better chance of winning what would automatically become an “open” seat.

I confess that political science professors such as myself played a role in the increasing popularity of congressional term limits during the 1970s and 1980s. We carefully documented the ways in which incumbent Democratic House members skillfully used the powers of their elected offices to almost automatically get reelected.

By sending mail to their constituents (often at government expense), getting on television and doing favors, Democratic legislators in Washington, D C., were able to virtually guarantee their reelection for, it seemed, decades to come. As this process became well-known, many Republicans throughout the nation became supporters of term limits and began pushing the idea forward, in a nonpartisan or bipartisan fashion, as good for all levels of government, not just the House of Representatives.

But this 1998 version of congressional term limits for Colorado might best be characterized as “The Irrelevant Monster from the Past.” It is irrelevant because the Republican takeover of the U.S House in 1994 eliminated all logic, partisan or otherwise, for congressional term limits. The GOP showed that, even without term limits, enough Democratic incumbents could be defeated. And the best part of that historic turnover was that it was orchestrated by current voters, expressing their will in an open election, rather than by legalistic lines written in a national or state constitution.

So Colorado voters should keep in mind, as they troop to the polls, that the logic for supporting such a measure is buried in a partisan Republican past that is no longer relevant to the current political situation. In fact, now that the Republicans are the majority party in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, term limits actually work against the Republicans rather than for them.

It is true that term limits are rarely discussed in the directly partisan terms that I have presented them here. Term limit supporters do not like to admit that the original support for the idea came from a Republican desire to wrest control from the Democrats.

So, for those who want nonpartisan reasons to vote against Amendment 18, here they are:

· Term limits narrow the choices available to voters. When you go to the ballot box, you should be able to vote for any candidate you choose. If you like that 10-, 20- or even 30-year incumbent, you should be free to vote for her or him.

· Term limits unfairly penalize those with experience and proven skills in elective office. Do you automatically change your doctor every six years, even when he or she has done a great job of keeping you healthy? Voters should have the freedom to continue in office those elected officials who have served them well and demonstrated proven ability at successfully operating our government.

· Term limits increase the power of congressional staff members, who are not term-limited, and reduce the power of elected U.S. senators and representatives. Political scientists make good money teaching about the complex rules and labyrinthine legislative processes that characterize Capitol Hill. It is a system that places a premium on experience and knowing what has happened in the past. If elected officials are automatically forced out after six years or so in office, the only people who will “know the legislative ropes” will be the legislative bureaucrats who serve as Senate and House staff members. I would much rather be governed by an “old hand” who is an elected official, responsible to the voters, rather than by a paid bureaucrat, responsible to who knows what.

· Term limits attack the symptoms and not the underlying problems of electoral democracy in the United States. The real reason that members of the House get re-elected over and over again is that state governments fail to draw competitive U.S. House districts. Another reason is that incumbents tend to have a great deal more money than challengers have.

If we really want to make it easier for incumbents to be dislodged from office, let’s lobby for more competitive congressional districts and support campaign finance reform. Term limits just attack the superficial symptoms and leave the root causes of incumbency advantage unchanged.

Once again, it is time to reaffirm the idea that voters should have the greatest possible freedom to choose who will represent them in public office. Vote against Amendment 18.

Loevy is a professor of political science at The Colorado College. He is the author of “The Manipulated Path to the White House 1996: Maximizing Advantage in the Presidential Selection Process.”

Rocky Mountain News, October 25, 1998

Amendment 18: Pro: Con

Voter power crimped by the advantages of incumbency

By Dennis Polhill

The time is now. Colorado voters have a golden opportunity to change how things are done in the hallways of power.

A constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot, Amendment 18, will institute an official self-limit option for candidates. If you say yes, candidates for Congress will be able to take a pledge to limit their terms — to act as citizen legislators, not career politicians. The pledge would limit signers to three terms (six years) in the U.S. House of Representatives and two terms (12 years) in the U.S. Senate.

Saying yes to Amendment 18 would not force anybody to do anything. The pledge will be completely voluntary. Candidates who decline to sign will suffer no penalty. Those who do sign can choose whether or not to receive a notation next to their name on future ballots, indicating that they have signed. Those who decline to sign can ask, if they wish, for a notation on the ballot indicating their opposition to term limits.

Is self-limitation a good idea? Only if democracy is a good idea. And only if term limits are democratic. Pro-limiters agree with Lord Acton that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They know that the longer a politician remains in office, the more susceptible he becomes to the lures of power, at the expense of the common good. Term limits aim to nip this corrupting process in the bud. Self-limitation allows individual representatives to make a clear commitment to voters.

Let’s face it. Deadlines concentrate the mind wonderfully. Instead of playing games, self-limited representatives will be eager to get to work, to accomplish something substantial before they must turn over the baton to the next citizen. They won’t have patience for political games or climbing the seniority ladder. They won’t have time for baloney.

To be sure, term limits are not a cure-all. Even under a completely term-limited legislature, we’d still get rotten apples, people who crave power for the sake of power. But the damage would be limited by the term limit. It’s a safety net citizens need and deserve.

Critics of term limits like to play a kind of trump card, one that seems persuasive at first glance — but only at first glance. “We already have term limits,” they often say. “They’re called elections.” The notion being that the public is perfectly free to eject the current occupant whenever the next election rolls around.

And if that were all that counted, if the only thing needed to sustain democratic institutions were the ability of registered voters to enter a booth and yank a lever, the argument would indeed trump. It would also prove too much, e.g., that every banana republic or totalitarian dictatorship that holds an election is a flourishing liberal democracy, no matter how meaningless that election might be.

Elections do count in this country. Voters do exercise real power at every level of government. But that power is crimped by the advantages of incumbency.

Name recognition is one obvious advantage. The chance to spend other people’s money on special interests (who then turn around and fund the incumbent’s campaign) is another. Franking privileges (the freedom to send large amounts of self-promotion mail at taxpayer’s expense, in the guise of “informing” the voters) are a third.

Challengers don’t get franking privileges. Challengers aren’t allowed to spend public money building dams and bridges. Challengers don’t have the kind of politically rigged, gerrymandered districts that so many incumbents enjoy.

Sometimes term-limit skeptics concede the undemocratic advantages of incumbency, but still reject term limits. They say reform should be engineered from within by the incumbents themselves. The problem is that already-ensconced incumbents have little incentive, as a group, to restrain their own collective power. But as a voter, you can demand that individual candidates limit themselves and you can hold your representative to that commitment.

Once upon a time, our statesmen typically served a couple of terms and then went home, following the lead of George Washington. Alas, the Founders took the virtue of rotation so much for granted that nobody bothered to write it into the Constitution (an omission that distressed Jefferson, for one). But the virtue of rotation is nowhere to be seen in today’s Congress.

The best show of good faith that any politician, aspirant or incumbent, can make to prove he’s serious about political reform is to formally agree to limit his own terms.

To sign a public pledge to do so. To affirm that he’s a citizen legislator, not a career politician. That he means what he says.

Colorado voters have led the charge for term limits by passing the first congressional term limits in the nation back in 1990. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court wasn’t willing to let the will of the voters prevail. This time, there will be no way to overturn what you decide. Say yes to Amendment 18. The time is now.

Dennis Polhill is co-chairman of Colorado Term Limits Coalition

Voters don’t back up talk

By Charles Roos

For the fourth time in eight years the people of Colorado are going to vote on the issue of term limits, and the 1998 version — Amendment 18— is the zaniest yet.

It is not only half-baked, unnecessary and maybe unconstitutional, but it also could clutter and confuse Colorado ballots for years to come.

It is a sneaky attempt aimed, indirectly but surely, at forcing term limits on our members of Congress. It would set up a “voluntary” system for disclosure of candidates’ views on term limits by printing labels on the ballot.

Never mind that the Supreme Court has said no state may impose term limits on Congress.

Never mind what other views a candidate may have — on the economy, education or foreign affairs. The one and only ballot disclosure would be on term limits.

How silly can it get?

Of course the people who want this clinker in the Colorado Constitution will argue that it’s necessary to help get rid of members who have served much too long and who have refused to quit voluntarily.

Let’s look at that.

In Colorado’s delegation, we now have one senator serving his first term, Republican Wayne Allard, and one running for his second, Republican Ben Campbell. We have one representative running for his seventh House term, Republican Joel Hefley, one running for his fourth term, Republican Scott McInnis, and two running for their second terms, Democrat Diana DeGette and Republican Bob Schaffer. We also have two open districts in which the November winners will be first-termers.

As I figure it, as of now the delegation has an average of fewer than four years experience on the job, not counting Campbell’s and Allard’s previous service in the House.

But does that sound like we have a delegation of entrenched, doddering autocrats? Not to me.

But wait, say the backers of Amendment 18, the voters of Colorado have already said three times they want term limits. Well, yes, they have, on a statewide basis, but there’s another way to look at it.

Consider the career of six-term Congressman Joel Hefley. El Paso County, which dominates his district, voted 4-to-1 for the original, broad term-limit amendment in 1990 and reaffirmed, its support of the concept in 1994 and 1996.

Yet at the same time El Paso was giving Hefley majorities of upwards of 68 percent for his third, fourth, fifth and sixth terms. In 1994, he had no opposition in either party.

When it came right down to it, how strongly did Hefley’s backers believe in term limits?

Then there’s the case of Denver’s now-retired congresswoman, Democrat Pat Schroeder, who served 12 House terms — a whopping 24 years. Well, in 1990 Denver voters approved the original term-limit proposal by 63 percent, but on the same day they re-elected Schroeder to her 10th term by 64 percent.

OK. So what about 6th District Republican Dan Schaefer, retiring this year after 16 years? Same story. His two counties, Arapahoe and Jefferson, voted decisively for term limits three times. Yet they always gave Schaefer monumental majorities.

In the legislative council’s evenhanded analysis of 1998 ballot issues, one argument given for Amendment 18 is that it “provides an opportunity for members of Congress from Colorado to choose to limit the number of terms they will serve.”

Hey, they already have that opportunity. More important, voters have the same opportunity every time a member comes up for reelection.

The sad fact, folks, is that the term-limitation people, one way or another, by slogan and subterfuge, want to take away your freedom to elect the people you want for as long as you want them.

It’s as simple as that.

QUOTE: Trust democracy, U.S. voters don’t need any help “throwing the bums out.” They already can and do.— USA Today (1994) Charles Roos, retired political editor at the News, writes a weekly column that appears on Fridays.

Aurora Sentinel, October 21, 1998

Term limit liars

Editor: When asked, the majority of congressman in Washington will profess their strong support of term limits. In fact, ironically, many of these same politicians campaign on their support of term limits and a citizen legislature election after election — on their way to a very long career.

Year after year, the careerist U. S. Congress has shown that it will not impose term limits on its members. Of course, members promise their constituents they will vote for term limits, but often self-interest — not to mention the nice office and six-figure salary are just too much to walk away from. So instead, every year Congress institutes a series of procedural maneuvers to guarantee member the opportunity to get on the record supporting some type of term limits, while all along ensuring that term limits will never pass Congress.

In response to this refusal of Congress to pass a term limits law, the Colorado Term Limits Coalition has placed on the state ballot an initiative, Amendment 18, that serves as a important step in taking Congress back from career politicians.

This initiative, known as the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act, will allow candidates for Congress to sign a document limiting their own term in office. When the law is passed, every candidate for Congress will be offered a declaration stating they will serve no more than three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. This will be strictly voluntary. If a candidate does not wish to sign, there will be no requirement to do so. This information, at the candidate’s request, will then be placed on the ballot to inform voters of the candidate’s personal position and actual intentions on term limits. If Amendment 18 passes, voters will be able to distinguish between those candidates who intend to limit their own terms and serve as citizen legislators and those who do not.

Amendment 18 is needed because many voters believe candidates cannot be trusted to honor their promises on term limits once they go to Washington. Here in Colorado, U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, who initially promised voters that he would serve only four terms, has now stated publicly that he probably will break the term-limit promise to his constituents. This despite polls that consistently show voters prefer candidates who agree to self-limit their tenure in Washington by an overwhelming margin of seven to one.

Despite the overwhelming support of term limits in Colorado, there are only two elected officials who have already agreed to self-limit – Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Bob Schaffer. But the voters have already exhibited their support of term limits. In the 6th Congressional District Republican primary, a candidate who signed a pledge to limit his tenure to three terms in Congress upset the favorite who had publicly stated he would not agree to limit his tenure if elected.

Notwithstanding this support of term limits, some naysayers still exist. Opponents of term limits will claim that we need experience and longevity to lookout for the interests of Colorado. But this is an elitist attitude that many career politicians hold, that assumes that Colorado voters don’t know who they are voting for. Three times this decade, Colorado voters have passed term-limit initiatives. Coloradans have made it abundantly clear they want citizen legislators — not career politicians.

In Colorado, U.S. senators and representatives are the only office holders not subject to term limits. Every attempt by the voters of Colorado to do what Congress won’t do to itself — pass Congressional term limits — has been thwarted by unelected judges.

Amendment 18 is an important step towards getting rid of career politicians and will bring what nearly 70 percent of Colorado voters have repeatedly said they desire — Congressional term limits.

Dennis Polhill Co-chaiman of the Colorado Term limits Coalition

Intermountain Jewish News, Denver, Colorado, October 16, 1998

Term Limits Amendment 

Editor: When asked, the majority of congressmen and senators in Washington will profess their strong support of term limits. In fact, ironically, many of these same politicians campaign on their support of term limits and a citizen legislature election after election after election — on their way to a very long career in Washington.

Year after year, the careerist US Congress has shown that it will not impose term limits on its members.  Of course, members promise their constituents they will vote for term limits, but often self-interest — not to mention the nice office and six-figure salary are just too much to walk away from. So instead, every year Congress institutes a series of procedural maneuvers to guarantee members the opportunity to get on the record supporting some type of term 1irnits while all along ensuring that term limits will never pass Congress.

In response to this refusal of Congress to pass a term limits law, the Colorado Term Limits Coalition has placed on the ballot an initiative (Amendment 18) that serves as an important step in taking Congress back from career politicians.

This initiative, known as the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act, will allow candidates for Congress to sign a declaration stating they will serve no more than three terms in the US House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate.

This will he strictly voluntary. If a candidate does not wish to sign, there will be requirement to do so. This information, at the candidate’s request, will then be placed on the ballot to inform voters of that candidate’s personal position and actual intentions on term limits.

When Amendment 18 passes voters will be able to distinguish between those candidates who intend to limit their own terms and serve as citizen legislators and those who do not.

Many Americans, from all political spectrums, feel they are not represented in Congress. They are tired of having representatives who are more receptive to special interests bearing donations than they are to the concerns of their constituents.

Despite the overwhelming support of term limits in Colorado, there are only two elected officials who have already agreed to self-limit – Sen. Wayne Allard and Cong. Bob Schaffer. But the voters have already exhibited their support of term limits.  In the Sixth Congressional District Republican primary a candidate who signed a pledge to limit his tenure to three terms in Congress upset the favorite who had publicly stated he would not agree to limit his tenure if elected.

Notwithstanding this support of term limits, some naysayers still exist. Opponents of term limits will claim that we need experience and longevity for the interests of Colorado. But this is an elitist attitude that many career politicians hold, that assumes that Colorado voters don’t know what they are voting for. Three times this decade, Colorado voters have passed term limits initiatives. Coloradans have made it abundantly clear, they want citizen legislators not career politicians.

Here in Colorado, our US senators and representatives are the only officeholders not subject to term limits. Every attempt by the voters of Colorado to do what Congress won’t do to itself — pass Congressional term limits — has been thwarted by unelected judges.

Amendment 18 is an important step toward getting rid of career politicians. By informing voters of the term limits position of candidates for Congress, voters are able to make a more informed decision on what type of candidate they want in Congress  — a citizen legislator who will limit their tenure in Congress or a career politician. Sending term-limit supporters to Congress will bring better, more responsive, representation to Colorado citizens. And ultimately, Amendment 18 will bring Coloradans what nearly 70% of Colorado voters have repeatedly said they desire – Congressional term limits.  

Dennis Polhill, Colorado Term Limits Coalition

Denver Post, October 11, 1998

No Uncertain Terms

Measure seeks to Limit Congressional Stays

Less is more with career politicians

By Dennis Polhill

Colorado voters have another golden opportunity to lead the charge for term limits on Congress. Amendment 18, on the ballot this November, is the next crucial step in restoring Congress to a true citizen legislature through term limits.

Amendment 18 will do two important things. First, it allows candidates to sign an official pledge to live by self-imposed term limits and thus go to Washington as citizen legislators. These citizen legislators will better represent us because the temptation of a lavish career in Congress dangled before them by lobbyists, special interests and party bosses will not be possible. They will remain closer to the people of our state, because they know that one day soon they will again, be private Colorado citizens.

Of course, many of Colorado’s congressional representatives have already term-limited themselves. Former Sen. Bill Armstrong stepped down after two terms, and Hank Brown came back to Colorado after one term in the Senate. Senators Wayne Allard and Ben Nighthorse Campbell have pledged to serve no more than two terms, and ‘Campbell’s opponent, Dottie Lamm, has also pledged a two-term limit. And this list is far from complete. Amendment 18 will put these pledges officially on record.

Secondly, Amendment 18 means that as voters we’ll know whether a candidate for Congress seeks to be a citizen legislator, serving the people for a short period of time, or a professional politician seeking to cash in on the perks, privileges and lucrative pension of a career in Congress. We’ll know because it will be an official matter of record, and because candidates will have the option of putting that information next to their name on the ballot. Incumbents cannot be denied the opportunity to continue running for office even if they betray their promise.  But voters will have information to enforce the candidate’s pledge if they choose.      

The pledge limits signers to three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and two terms in the U.S. Senate. These are the same limits Colorado voters passed statewide repeatedly, but the courts disallowed. Yet where those laws failed in court, Amendment 18 will be upheld because no candidate is forced to do anything. The pledge is completely voluntary. Candidates who decline to sign will suffer no penalty. Those who do sign can choose whether or not to receive a notation next to their name on future ballots, indicating that they have signed. Those who decline to sign can ask, if they wish, for a notation on the ballot indicating their opposition to imposing term limits.

It is an issue of character contrasting sharply with the hypocrisy of those who profess to favor term limits while doggedly pursuing a long-time career in Washington. Voters know, too, that the longer politicians remain in office the more susceptible they become to the lures of power, and the more they represent the special interests of Washington, not their own.

Let’s face it. Deadlines concentrate the mind wonderfully. Instead of playing games, term-limited representatives will be eager to get to work, to accomplish something substantial before they must turn over the baton to the next citizen legislator. They won’t have time for political games. Instead, our representatives to Washington will have every incentive to change the destructive and corrupting culture of Washington.

It’s an old story, almost as old as our republic. Once upon a time statesmen typically served a couple of terms and then went home, following the lead of George Washington. Alas, the founders took the virtue of rotation so much for granted that nobody bothered to write it into the Constitution (an omission that distressed Jefferson, for one). From 1790 until 1940 the average turnover in Congress was 40 percent. Since 1940 turnover has averaged a feeble 17 percent. Today, most politicians who go to Congress want to stay and stay and stay.

Voters can demand that candidates limit themselves, and they can hold their representatives to that commitment. Amendment 18 helps them do just that by providing candidates an opportunity to speak out on the issue (if they choose) and giving voters information that they consider important.

Colorado led the charge for congressional term limits by passing the first such law in the nation in 1990. We then passed term limits, for local elected officials throughout the state in 1994. Two years later, Colorado voters passed an initiative that instructed our legislators to do everything in their power to pass a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits.

But politicians, and the special interests that feed at the public trough, won’t give up without a fight. By arrogantly denying the people their will, not only do they frustrate one of the most needed congressional reforms, but they subvert the very foundation of our democratic process. Amendment 18 is your chance to reform an out-of-touch, out-of-control Congress. Vote yes on term limits.— yes on Amendment 18.

Dennis Polhill is a civil engineer and has been co-chairman of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition since 1994.

Don’t turn away experienced incumbents

By Robert D. Loevy

Once again the issue of term limits is making an appearance in the state of Colorado.

I am referring to the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits initiative that will be on the general election ballot in Colorado on Nov. 3.

This particular version of the ever-returning proposal provides that candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate may note on the ballot their voluntary acceptance of term limits.

There was a time when term limits could be defended on a partisan basis. Until 1994, the Democratic Party controlled the U.S. Rouse of Representatives for multiple decades, starting with the congressional elections of 1954.

Republican strategists, desperate to break the apparent Democratic strangle hold on the U.S. House, came up with term limits as the solution to the problem.

If incumbent Democratic legislators were forced by constitutional fiat to leave office after six or eight years, the thinking went, the Republicans would have a better chance of winning what would automatically become an “open” seat.

I confess that political science professors such as myself played a role in the increasing popularity of congressional term limits during the 1970s and 1980s.

We carefully documented the ways in which incumbent Democratic House members skillfully used the powers of their elected offices to almost automatically get re-elected.

By sending mail to their constituents (often at government expense), getting on television, and doing favors, Democratic legislators in Washington, D.C., were able to virtually guarantee their re-election for, it seemed, decades to come.

As this process became well known, many Republicans throughout the nation became supporters of term limits and began pushing the idea, in a non-partisan or bipartisan fashion, as good for all levels of government, not just the U.S. House of Representatives. But this 1998 version of congressional term limits for Colorado might best be characterized as “The Irrelevant Monster From The Past.”

It is irrelevant because the Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 eliminated all logic, partisan or otherwise, for congressional term limits.

In 1994 the Republicans showed that, even without term limits, enough Democratic incumbents could be defeated for the GOP to take over the U.S. House of Representatives. 

And the best part of that historic 1994 turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives was that it was orchestrated by current voters, expressing their will in an open election rather than by legalistic lines written in a national or state constitution.

So Colorado voters should keep in mind, as they troop to the polls to vote on Voluntary Congressional Term Limits, that the logic for supporting such a measure is buried in the past — a partisan Republican past that is no longer relevant to the current political situation.

In fact, now that the Republicans are the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, term limits actually work against the Republicans rather than for them.

It is true that term limits are rarely discussed in the directly partisan terms that I have presented them here.

Term-limit supporters do not like to admit that the original support for the idea came from a Republican desire to wrest control of the U.S. House of Representatives from the Democrats.

So, for those who want non-partisan reasons to vote against Voluntary Congressional Term Limits, here they are:

·        Term limits narrow the choices available to voters. When you go to the ballot box, you should be able to vote for any candidate you choose. If you like that 10-, 20-, or even 30- year incumbent, you should be free to vote for her or him.

·        Term limits unfairly penalize those with experience and proven skills in elective office. Do you automatically change your doctor every six years, even when he or she has done a great job of keeping you healthy? Do you stop going to your regular vacation spot after six years, even though it remains your favorite place in the whole world? Should married couples automatically divorce after six years, even if they are still madly in love with each other? Voters should have the freedom to continue in office those elected officials who have served them well and demonstrated proven ability at successfully operating our government.

·        Term limits increase the power of congressional staff members, who are not term-limited, and reduce the power of elected U.S. senators and representatives. Political scientists make good money teaching about the complex rules and labyrinthine legislative processes that characterize Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. It is a system that places a premium on experience and knowing what has happened in the past. If elected officials are automatically forced out after six years or so in office, the only people who will “know the legislative ropes” will be the legislative bureaucrats who serve as U.S. Senate and U.S. House staff members. I would much rather be governed by an “old hand” who is an elected official, responsible to the voters, than by a paid bureaucrat, responsible to “who-knows-what.”

·        Term limits attack the symptoms and not the underlying problems of electoral democracy in the United States. The real reason that members of the U.S. House of Representatives get re-elected over and over again is that state governments fail to draw competitive U.S. House districts.

Another reason is that incumbents tend to have a great deal more money than challengers have.

If we really want to make it easier for incumbents to be dislodged from office, let’s lobby for more competitive congressional districts and support campaign finance reform.

Term limits just attack the superficial symptoms and leave the root causes of incumbency advantage unchanged.

Once again it is time to reaffirm the idea that voters should have the greatest possible freedom to choose who will represent them in public office.

Vote “Against” the proposed initiative on Voluntary Congressional Term Limits.

Robert D. Loevy is a professor of political science at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. He is the author of “The Manipulated Path To The White House 1996: Maximizing Advantage In The Presidential Selection Process.

Colorado Statesman, October 9, 1998

POLHILL: TAKE CONGRESS BACK FROM CAREER POLITICIANS

Vote ‘yes’ on voluntary term limits

By Dennis Polhill

When asked, the majority of Congressmen and Senators in Washington will profess their strong support of term limits. In fact, ironically, many of these same politicians campaign on their support of term limits and a citizen legislature election after election after election — on their way to a very long career in Washington.

Year after year, the careerist United States Congress has shown that it will not impose term limits on its members. Of course, members promise their constituents they will vote for term limits, but often self-interest — not to mention the nice office and six-figure salary are just too much to walk away from. So instead, every year Congress institutes a series of procedural maneuvers to guarantee members the opportunity to get on the record supporting some type of term limits, while all along ensuring that term limits will never pass Congress.

In response to this refusal of Congress to pass a term limits law, the Colorado Term Limits Coalition has placed on the ballot an initiative(Amendment 18) that serves as an important step in taking Congress back from career politicians.

This initiative, known as the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act, will allow candidates for congress to sign a declaration limiting their own term in office. When the law is passed, every candidate for Congress will be offered a declaration stating they will serve no more than 3 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives or 2 terms in the Senate. This will be strictly voluntary. If a candidate does not wish to sign, there will be no requirement to do so. This information, at the candidate’s request, will then be placed on the ballot to inform voters of that candidate’s personal position and actual intentions on term limits. When Amendment 18 passes voters will be able to distinguish between those candidates who intend to limit their own terms and serve as citizen legislators and those who do not.

Amendment 18 is needed because many voters believe candidates cannot be trusted to honor their promises on term limits once they go to Washington. Unfortunately, this public distrust has proven to be extremely well placed. Here in Colorado, Congressman Scott McInnis, who initially promised voters that he would serve only four terms, has now stated publicly that he probably will break the term limit promise to his constituents. This despite polls that consistently show voters prefer candidates who agree to self-limit their tenure in Washington by an overwhelming margin of 7 to 1.

Furthermore, many Americans, from all political spectrums, feel they are not represented in Congress. They are tired of politicians who say one thing to the voters and do something entirely different once in Washington. They are tired of having representatives who are more receptive to special interests bearing donations, than they are to the concerns of their constituents.

Despite the overwhelming support of term limits in Colorado, there are only two elected officials who have already agreed to self-limit— Senator Wayne Allard and Congressman Bob Schaffer. But the voters have already exhibited their support of term Limits. In the 6th Congressional District Republican primary, a candidate who signed a pledge to limit his tenure to three terms in Congress upset the favorite who had publicly stated he would not agree to limit his tenure if elected.

Notwithstanding this support of term limits, some naysayers still exist. Opponents of term limits will claim that we need experience and longevity to look out for the interests of Colorado. But this is an elitist attitude that many career politicians hold that assumes that Colorado voters don’t know what they are voting for. Three times this decade, Colorado voters have passed term limits initiatives. Coloradans have made it abundantly clear, they want citizen legislators, not career politicians.

Here in Colorado, our U.S. Senators and Representatives are the only officeholders not subject to term limits. Every attempt by the voters of Colorado to do what Congress won’t do to itself — pass Congressional term limits has been thwarted by unelected judges.

Amendment 18 is an important step towards getting rid of career politicians. By informing voters of the term limits position of candidates for Congress, voters are able to make a more informed decision on what type of candidate they want in Congress — a citizen legislator who will limit their tenure in Congress or a career politician. Sending term-limit supporters to Congress will bring better, more responsive, representation of Colorado citizens. And ultimately, Amendment 18 will bring Coloradans what nearly 70% of Colorado voters have repeatedly said they desire — Congressional term limits.

Dennis Polhill is the Co-chairman of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition.

Steamboat Pilot, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, October 7, 1998

Guest comment

Congress won’t impose term limits on itself, so voters should

This week guest comments come from Dennis Polhill. Polhill is the co-chairman of the Colorado Term Limits Coalition headquarters in Lakewood.

When asked, the majority of Congressmen and Senators in Washington will profess their strong support of term limits. In fact, ironically, many of these same politicians campaign on their support of term limits and a citizen legislature election after election after election on their way to a very long career in Washington.

Year after year, the careerist United States Congress has shown that it will not impose term limits on its members.

Of course, members promise their constituents they will vote for term limits, but often self-interest — not to mention the nice office and six-figure salary — are just too much to walk away from. So instead, every year Congress institutes a series of procedural maneuvers to guarantee members the opportunity to get on the record supporting some type of term limits, while all along ensuring that term limits will never pass Congress.

In response to this refusal of Congress to pass a term limits law, the Colorado Term Limits Coalition has placed on the ballot an initiative (Amendment 18) that serves as an important step in taking Congress back from career politicians.

This initiative, known as the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act, will allow candidates for congress to sign a declaration limiting their own term in office. When the law is passed, every candidate for Congress will be offered a declaration stating they will serve no more than three terms in the U.S. House of Representative or two terms in the Senate.

This will be strictly voluntary. If a candidate does not wish to sign, there will be no requirement to do so. This information, at the candidate’s request, will then be placed on the ballot to inform voters of that candidate’s personal position and actual intentions on term limits. When the Amendment 18 passes voters will be able to distinguish between those candidates who intend to limit their own terms and serve as citizen legislators and those who do not.

Amendment 18 is needed because many voters believe candidates cannot be trusted to honor their promises on term limits once they go to Washington. Unfortunately this public distrust has proven to be extremely well placed.

Here in Colorado, Congressman Scott Mclnnis, who initially promised voters, that he would serve only four terms, has now stated publicly that he probably will break the term limit promise to his constituents. This despite polls that consistently show voters prefer candidates who agree to self-limit their tenure in Washington by an Overwhelming margin of 7 to 1.

Furthermore, many Americans, from all political spectrums, feel they are not represented in Congress. They are tired of politicians who say one thing to the voters and do something entirely different once in Washington. They are tired of having representatives who are more receptive to special interests bearing donations, than they are to the concerns of their constituents.

Despite the overwhelming support of term limits in Colorado, there are only two elected officials who have already agreed to self-limit — Sen. Wayne Allard and Congressman Bob Schaffer.

But the voters have already exhibited their support of term limits.

In the 6th Congressional District Republican primary, a candidate who signed a pledge to limit his tenure to three terms in Congress upset the favorite who had publicly stated he would not agree to limit his tenure if elected.

Notwithstanding this support of term limits, some naysayers still exist. Opponents of term limits will claim that we need experience and longevity to look out for the interests of Colorado. But this is an elitist attitude that many career politicians hold, that assumes that Colorado voters don’t know what they are voting for.

Three times this decade, Colorado voters have passed term limits initiatives. Coloradans have made it abundantly clear, they want citizen legislators not career politicians.

Here in Colorado, our U.S. senators and representatives are the only officeholders not subject to term limits. Every attempt by the voters of Colorado to do what Congress won’t do to itself — pass Congressional term limits — has been thwarted by judges.

Amendment 18 is an important step toward getting rid of career politicians.

By informing voters of the term limits position of candidates for Congress, voters are able to make a more informed decision on what type of candidate they want in Congress — a citizen legislator who will limit their tenure in Congress or a career politician.

Sending term-limit supporters to Congress will bring better, more responsive, representation to Colorado citizens. And ultimately Amendment 18 will bring Coloradans what nearly 70 percent of Colorado voters have repeatedly said they desire — congressional term limits.

Lafayette News, October 5, 1998

‘Yes’ on Amendment 18 is ‘yes’ on term limits

By DENNIS POLHILL

When asked, the majority of Congressmen and Senators in Washington will profess their strong support of term limits. In fact, ironically, many of these same politicians campaign on their support of term limits and a citizen legislature election after election after election – on their way to a very long career in Washington.

Year after year, the careerist United States Congress has shown that it will not impose term limits on its members. Of course, members promise their constituents they will vote for term limits, but often self-interest – not to mention the nice office and six-figure salary are just too much to walk away from. So instead, every year Congress institutes a series of procedural maneuvers to guarantee members the opportunity to get on the record supporting some type of term limits, while all along ensuring that term limits will never pass Congress.

In response to this refusal of Congress to pass a term limits law, the Colorado Term Limits Coalition has placed on the ballot an initiative (Amendment 18) that serves as an important step in taking Congress back from career politicians.

This initiative, known as the Voluntary Congressional Term Limits Declaration Act, will allow candidates for Congress to sign a declaration limiting their own term in office. When the law is passed, every candidate for Congress will be offered a declaration stating they will serve no more than three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. This will be strictly voluntary. If a candidate does not wish to sign, there will be no requirement to do so. This information, at the candidate’s request, will then be placed on the ballot to inform voters of that candidate’s personal position and actual intentions on term limits. When the Amendment 18 passes voters will be able to distinguish between those candidates who intend to limit their own terms and serve as citizen legislators and those who do not.

Amendment 18 is needed because many voters believe candidates cannot be trusted to honor their promises on term limits once they go to Washington. Unfortunately this public distrust has proven to be extremely well placed. Here in Colorado, Congressman Scott McInnis, who initially promised voters that he would serve only four terms, has now stated publicly that he probably will break the term limit promise to his constituents. This despite polls that consistently show voters prefer candidates who agree to self-limit their tenure in Washington by an overwhelming margin of 7 to 1.

Furthermore, many Americans, from all political spectrums, feel they are not represented in Congress. They are tired of politicians who say one thing to the voters and do something entirely different once in Washington. They are tired of having representatives who are more receptive to special interests bearing donations, than they are to the concerns of their constituents.

Despite the overwhelming support of term limits in Colorado, there are only two elected officials who have already agreed to self-limit Senator Wayne Allard and Congressman Bob Schaffer. But the voters have already exhibited their support of term limits. In the 6th Congressional District Republican primary, a candidate who signed a pledge to limit his tenure to three terms in Congress upset the favorite who had publicly stated he would not agree to limit his tenure if elected.

Notwithstanding this support of term limits, some naysayers still exist. Opponents of term limits will claim that we need experience and longevity to look out for the interests of Colorado. But this is an elitist attitude that many career politicians hold, that assumes that Colorado voters don’t know what they are voting for. Three times this decade, Colorado voters have passed term limits initiatives. Coloradans have made it abundantly clear, they want citizen legislators not career politicians.

Here in Colorado, our U.S. Senators and Representatives are the only officeholders not subject to term limits. Every attempt by the voters of Colorado to do what Congress won’t do to itself – pass Congressional term limits has been thwarted by unelected judges.

Amendment 18 is an important step towards getting rid of career politicians. By informing voters of the term limits position of candidates for Congress, voters are able to make a more informed decision on what type of candidate they want in Congress – a citizen legislator who will limit their tenure in Congress or a career politician. Sending term-limit supporters to Congress will bring better, more responsive, representation to Colorado citizens. And ultimately, Amendment 18 will bring Coloradans what nearly 70 percent of Colorado voters have repeatedly said they desire – Congressional term limits.

(Dennis Polhill is the Co-chairman of the Term Limits Coalition.)