ELECTED OFFICIALS loathe term limits (they’re forced to retire). Special interest groups don’t like them (they lose allies they’ve assiduously wooed). The media rarely have a kind word for them (their sources leave town). And the consensus for several years in the political community has been that the term limits movement is dying. Alas, voters still love them, a fact loudly underscored last week by the defeat of a clever California initiative to roll back term limits on state legislators. Supporters of term limits were outspent ten to one. Even a quotation from Ronald Reagan was used against them. Yet they trounced Proposition 45, the initiative that would have allowed term-limited legislators to stay in office, 58 percent to 42 percent. Now the question is whether the California triumph has legs. The case for term limits hasn’t changed. They promote competition in elections and turnover in legislative bodies. They remove legislators or other elected officials who’ve become entwined with special interests, replacing them with newcomers with closer ties to actual voters. They make room for more non-professional politicians, grass-roots types, women, and minorities. Many conservatives believe term limits will result, not immediately but over the long run, in conservative policies, since elected officials will be more responsive to voters and less to lobbyists and liberal elites who often dominate state capitals and local governments. Naturally, leaders in the fight for term limits believe the California vote has transformed the politics of the issue. “California is so often a trendsetter,” says Stacie Rumenap of U.S. Term Limits. Not always, though. Remember Proposition 187 restricting government aid to illegal immigrants? It wasn’t widely copied. The Proposition 45 vote is “a turning point,” says Eric O’Keefe, president of Americans for Limited Terms. Officials seeking to undo term limits in their states are bound to have second thoughts after California, he says. This makes sense. So at least the drive to eliminate term limits may have peaked. Since the mid-1990s, when congressional term limits were defeated and courts struck down limits on legislators in three states, this effort has been both intense and bipartisan. Last year, the overwhelmingly Republican legislature of Idaho repealed term limits over the veto of Gov. Dirk Kempthorne. Despite polls in Florida and Michigan showing the enduring popularity of term limits, Republicans and Democrats are pressing to kill them in both states. Efforts are also underway in Maine, Missouri, Ohio, and Arizona, where GOP governor Jane Hull has endorsed an end to limits. But all that was pre-California, where term limits are more popular than ever. In 1990, they were approved 52 percent to 48 percent. “When we’ve moved from a 4-point win in 1990 to a 16-point win this year, it’s fair to say that term limits have actually gained strength,” insists Rumenap. Terms limits are of course common in America. The 22nd Amendment holds a president to two terms, 38 states restrict their governor’s term, and congressional Republicans put limits on their leaders and committee chairmen. Roughly 3,000 local governments have term limits, including New York City, where Rudy Giuliani was required to step down as mayor on January 1. Seventeen states currently have limits on legislative terms, and in all but two of them–Utah and Louisiana–they’ve been imposed by referenda. For term limiters, the next step is to get a new initiative on the ballot in Idaho this fall and to defeat a few legislators who voted for repeal. That might concentrate the minds of others contemplating repeal. The biggest problem comes in the 26 states that have no effective provision for referenda. There, legislators would have to vote to limit their own terms and getting them to do so is a daunting task. The Utah legislature passed term limits only because a referendum was imminent. Nonetheless, leaders of the term limits movement, sensing a California win, began strategizing earlier this year on how to approach state legislatures. Should they seek to get an initiative and referendum process enacted or prod the legislators to vote for limits? Their strategy will probably be to lobby legislators to act. What helped them in California was the brazen bid by Democrats to keep their jobs in the legislature. The initiative would have allowed term-limited legislators to run again if they collected the signatures of 20 percent of the voters in the last election. This favored Democrats because many more of them represent low turnout, minority districts. The state Democratic party donated $3.2 million to the anti-limits effort, and it was backed by labor unions and industries (gambling, alcohol, banking, insurance) regulated by the state. The opposition to Proposition 45 was led by a Republican consultant, Dan Schnur. The campaign to shave back term limits was also deceptively packaged as a way to make limits “work better” and to expand “local voter rights.” On the ballot, the preamble to the initiative said: “Term limits have reinvigorated the political process by promoting full participation and bringing a breath of fresh air to California government.” A mailer showed a picture of Reagan and quoted from him. “Like President Reagan, Proposition 45 puts its faith in the voters to make the right decisions for themselves,” it said. Voters weren’t fooled. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
