Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, November 29, 1994 TAG: 9412070051
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RICHARD E. SINCERE JR.
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Yes, prominent congressional opponents were defeated, such as Tom Foley and Dan Rostenkowski. Yes, voters in seven states approved laws imposing term limits on their congressional delegations, bringing the total number to 23. But the war for the citizen legislature is not over.
Despite notable losses like Foley and Rostenkowski, the fact is that 91 percent of congressional incumbents were re-elected. Only two incumbent senators (out of 26) lost, while only 35 out of 385 House incumbents lost. When incumbents lose, it's big news. When an incumbent loses and we say ``ho-hum,'' then term limits will be unnecessary.
Congressional turnover in the 1994 elections was below the average turnover in the first half of the 20th century, and less than the turnover in every election between 1788 and 1900. By these historical standards, turnover was pathetically low.
Moreover, important Republican opponents of term limits, such as Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have risen to powerful positions. Hyde is likely to be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which must consider all term-limits legislation. Hatch is a ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In addition, all states where voters have the legal capacity to approve term-limits laws through the initiative process have already voted and approved term limits for their congressional delegations (except Mississippi, which votes on term limits in 1995). In states like Virginia, voters must lobby their state legislators to impose term limits on themselves and their congressional colleagues. This will be an uphill battle, because professional politicians are not nearly as enthusiastic about term limits as typical Americans are.(Polls show that about 80 percent of Americans want to limit legislators' terms, an approval level that crosses race, gender and party lines)
The good news is that voters support candidates who support term limits. Of the 35 House incumbents who were defeated, for instance, 23 of them lost to signers of the Voters' Contract for a Citizen Congress, a pledge circulated by U.S. Term Limits, a national grass-roots advocacy group. Overall, 47 percent of identifiable anti-term limits incumbents lost. Incumbents whom voters recognized as opposed to term limits were five times more likely to lose their seats than other incumbents were.
According to the polling firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, which surveyed voters the night of the Nov. 8 election, 44 percent of voters considered term limits as they weighed which candidates to support. Of these, 75.8 percent said a candidate's support for term limits made them more likely to support that candidate.
These figures should serve as a warning to incumbents (and other candidates) who oppose term limits. Opposing a citizen legislature will be a major factor leading to their defeat. Ironically, even professional politicians are beginning to recognize this. Outgoing Oklahoma Sen. David Boren, a Democrat, confessed to reporters in October: ``I voted for the term-limits bill when it was on the ballot in Oklahoma. I think politics has become too professionalized in our society.''
What's the next step? On Nov. 29, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Arkansas case of U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. The court's view of term limits is hard to predict, but most term-limits proponents are confident their arguments will win the day.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed by Virginians for Term Limits, we argue that term limits withstand the test of constitutionality in two key areas:
First, the U.S. Constitution provides broad latitude to the states to regulate the time, place and manner of federal elections. Moreover, the Supreme Court has already ruled that states may ``provide a complete code for congressional elections,'' including restrictions such as state-imposed waiting-period rules, resign-to-run rules, and rules prohibiting write-in votes.
Second, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the states powers not assigned to the federal government. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the states may refine the qualifications for public office, including the Congress. The Constitution, he said, ``does not declare, itself, that the member shall not be a lunatic, a pauper, a convict of treason, of murder, of felony, or other infamous crime, or a nonresident of his district; nor does it prohibit to the state the power of declaring these, or any other disqualifications which its particular circumstances may call for; and these may be different in different states. Of course, then, by the 10th Amendment, the power is reserved to the state.''
The Arkansas term-limit law - and similar laws passed in 22 other states - will and should pass constitutional muster. Then we will all be able to enjoy the liberating effects of term limits.
Richard E. Sincere Jr. of Arlington is chairman of Virginians for Term Limits.
by CNB