termlimitslaw

Idaho's career politicians repealed their state's term limits law after failing
to get the voters and the courts to do it for them. Don't let them get away
with it! RESTORE IDAHO'S TERM LIMITS!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE TO REPEAL THE REPEAL
608 WEST HAYS • BOISE, IDAHO 83702 •
PHONE: (208) 429-9022 • FAX: (208) 429-9032

Mission Statement

On February 1, 2002, the Idaho Legislature became the only legislature in the nation to repeal a voter-enacted term limits law.
The Committee to Repeal the Repeal is dedicated to overturning this abusive, reckless action and reinstating term limits.

We are thousands of Idaho citizens from all walks of life. We are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, liberals, conservatives from all economic and social groups.

~~~~~~~~REFERENDUM LANGUAGE~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We are the People of Idaho.
We consider the action of the legislature to repeal term limits abusive and wrong not just because we believe in term limits; but also because we believe it is the very definition of tryranny for career politicians to overturn a law enacted by the people just so those same politicians can keep their stranglehold on power and authority.

We are now circulating a petition to place the action of the Legislature on the ballot this November in a referendum — a right guaranteed Idaho voters in the Constitution. Our goal is to repeal their repeal of term limts and show the politicians that in Idaho THE PEOPLE RULE, NOT THE POLITICIANS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Help us.
Check out the history of term limits in Idaho and the Legislature's actions.
Then, contact us and find out how you can help Repeal the Repeal.

COMMITTEE TO REPEAL THE REPEAL
608 WEST HAYS • BOISE, IDAHO 83702 •
PHONE: (208) 429-9022 • FAX: (208) 429-9032

Idaho Statute THAT GOT REPEALED

                                 TITLE 34
                                 ELECTIONS
                                 CHAPTER 9
                                  BALLOTS
34-907. LIMITATION OF BALLOT ACCESS FOR MULTI-TERM INCUMBENTS.
(1) A person shall not be eligible to have his or her name placed upon the primary
or general election ballot for a county, state or federal office which they
have previously held if they have served, will serve or but for resignation
would have served, in that same office by the end of the current term of
office for a length of time as follows
    a. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing any
    district within the state, during six (6) or more of the previous eleven
    (11) years.
    b. As a member of the U.S. Senate, during twelve (12) or more of the
    previous twenty[-]three (23) years.
    c. As a state elected official, during eight (8) or more of the previous
    fifteen (15) years.
    d. As a state legislator, representing any district within the state,
    including all House seats within the same district, during eight (8) or
    more of the previous fifteen (15) years.
    e. As a county commissioner, representing any district within the county,
    during six (6) or more of the previous eleven (11) years.
    f. As any other county elected official, during eight (8) or more of the
    previous [fifteen] (15) years.
    (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any
qualified voter of this state from casting a ballot in a general election for
any person by writing the name of that person on any ballot, or as prohibiting
such a properly marked general election ballot from being counted or
tabulated, nor shall any provision of this section be construed as preventing
or prohibiting any person from standing or campaigning for any elective office
by means of a "write-in" campaign in a general election.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AS YOU MIGHT KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN
FAVOR OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE TERM LIMITS LAW.
IT WAS DECLARED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. THAT
HAS BROUGHT ANGER AND FRUSTRATION FROM THE
PEOPLE TOWARD THOSE IN THE LEGISLATURE. THE
HOUSE LEADERSHIP LEAD THE EFFORTS TO REPEAL
THE LAW.

HOUSE BILL NO. 425 was the bill to repeal term limits
H-425......................................................by STATE AFFAIRS
TERM LIMITS - Repeals Idaho's term limit law for federal, statewide elected
executive officials, legislators, school district trustees and city and
county elected officials.

Bill Text

||||              LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO             ||||
Fifty-sixth Legislature                  Second Regular Session - 2002

                              IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                     HOUSE BILL NO. 425

                                 BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

1                                        AN ACT
2        TO DETERMINE THE LENGTH OF TIME AN ELECTED OFFICIAL MAY SERVE; SEC-
3        TIONS 34-907, 50-478 AND 33-443, IDAHO CODE, RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF
4        YEARS A PERSON MAY SERVE IN THE FOLLOWING ELECTIVE OFFICE BY RESTRICTING
5        ELIGIBILITY TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AFTER SERVING A PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF
6        YEARS: UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES SENATE, STATE
7        EXECUTIVE OFFICES, STATE LEGISLATURE, COUNTY ELECTED OFFICES, MUNICIPAL
8        OFFICERS AND SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

9    Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

10        SECTION 1. That Sections 34-907, 50-478 and 33-443, Idaho Code, be, and
11    the same are hereby repealed.
12
13        SECTION 2. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby
14    declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its
15    passage and approval.

Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact

                       STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
                            RS 11510
This proposed legislation will repeal Sections 34-907, 50-478,
and 33-443, Idaho Code, as it relates to term limits and declares
an emergency.
                          FISCAL IMPACT

No financial impact.

Contact
Name: Rep. Bruce Newcomb
Phone: (208) 332-1000
Rep. Frank Bruneel
Rep. Lawerence Denney

01/24    3rd rdg - PASSED - 50-20-0
      AYES -- Aikele, Barraclough, Barrett, Bedke, Bell, Black, Block,
      Bradford, Bruneel, Campbell, Clark, Collins, Crow, Cuddy, Deal,
      Denney, Eskridge, Field(13), Field(20), Gagner, Gould, Hadley,
      Hammond, Harwood, Higgins, Hornbeck, Jones, Kellogg, Kendell, Kunz,
      Langford, Mader, McKague, Meyer, Moyle, Pearce, Pischner, Raybould,
      Ridinger, Roberts, Schaefer, Sellman, Shepherd, Stevenson, Stone,
      Tilman, Trail, Wheeler, Wood, Mr. Speaker

      NAYS -- Bieter, Boe, Bolz, Callister, Ellis, Ellsworth, Henbest,
      Jaquet, Lake, Loertscher, Martinez, Montgomery, Mortensen, Pomeroy,
      Robison, Sali, Smith(33), Smith(23), Smylie, Young

      Absent and excused -- None
    Floor Sponsor - Newcomb
    Title apvd - to Senate
01/25    Senate intro - 1st rdg - to St Aff
01/29    Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
    2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
01/30    3rd rdg - PASSED - 27-8-0
      AYES -- Andreason, Boatright, Branch, Brandt, Bunderson, Burtenshaw,
      Cameron, Darrington, Davis, Deide, Geddes, Goedde, Hill, Ipsen,
      Keough, King-Barrutia, Little, Lodge, Noh, Richardson, Risch,
      Schroeder, Sims, Stegner, Thorne(Thorne), Wheeler, Williams

NAYS -- Dunklin, Frasure, Hawkins, Ingram, Marley, Sandy, Sorensen,
Stennett

      Absent and excused -- None
      AYE- Williams   NAY- Frasure
    Floor Sponsor - Geddes
    Title apvd - to House

The Idaho Statesman

House votes to repeal term limits 50 of 70 representatives opt to overrule Idaho's voters

By Wayne Hoffman

Katherine Jones / The Idaho Statesman
The House approved the term limits repeal bill championed by Speaker Bruce
Newcomb after two hours of debate Thursday.

How the House members voted
Here is the 50-20 roll call Thursday by which the House voted to repeal the
term-limits law approved by voter initiative in 1994, plus each lawmaker's
current term in office. (FOR indicates support for the repeal.)

Democrats FOR (2)

Cuddy (6th term), Shepherd (2nd).

Democrats AGAINST (7)

Bieter (2nd), Boe (3rd), Henbest (3rd), Jaquet (4th), Martinez (1st),
Robison (8th), E. Smith (1st).

Republicans FOR (48)

Aikele (1st), Barraclough (5th), Barrett (5th), Bedke (1st), Bell (7th),
Black (5th), Block (1st), Bradford (1st), Bruneel (4th), Campbell (3rd),
Clark (3rd), Collins (1st), Crow (10th), Deal (6th), Denney (3rd), Eskridge
(1st), D. Field (4th), F. Field (9th), Gagner (3rd), Gould (8th), Hadley
(3rd), Hammond (2nd), Harwood (1st), Higgins (1st), Hornbeck (4th), Jones
(9th), Kellogg (5th), Kendell (3rd), Kunz (3rd), Langford (1st), Mader
(5th), McKague (3rd), Meyer (4th), Moyle (2nd), Newcomb (8th), Pearce (2nd),
Pischner (4th), Raybould (1st), Ridinger (4th), Roberts (1st), Schaefer
(9th), Sellman (2nd), Stevenson (3rd), Stone (9th), Tilman (6th), Trail
(3rd), Wheeler (3rd), Wood (10th).
(33 of these would be term limited)

Republicans AGAINST (13)
(7 of these would be term limited)
Bolz (1st), Callister (3rd), Ellis (1st), Ellsworth (3rd), Lake (3rd),
Loertscher (8th), Montgomery (2nd), Mortensen (5th), Pomeroy (7th), Sali
(6th), L. Smith (2nd), Smylie (2nd), Young (1st).

History of Idaho's term-limits law

In 1994, voters approved a measure that limits ballot access for long-term
incumbents running for every office from Congress on down to the local
school boards. The candidate can run for office as a write-in, but his name
can't be on the ballot. The courts ruled term limits on federal officers
unconstitutional. The measure was reaffirmed in 1998 in an advisory vote. In
December, the state Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional.

All legislators are up for election every two years. Term limits for
legislators don't kick in until 2004. County and school boards are affected
right away. What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the
message board or send a letter to the editor.

House members said Thursday they don´t like the term-limits law Idahoans
adopted in 1994 and voted 50-20 to get rid of it, regardless of the
political consequences.

The chamber´s decision sends House Bill 425 to the Senate, where it is
expected to face a Monday hearing in the State Affairs Committee.

Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes said the bill could be decided in the
Senate by the end of next week.

Thursday´s vote gives the House Republican leaders spearheading the repeal
some leverage to override a promised veto from Gov. Dirk Kempthorne. It
takes 47 votes to succeed with a veto override.

At last count, 24 senators said they would support the bill. That´s just
enough to override the veto there, as well.

In two hours of debate, supporters and opponents of term limits drew
inspiration from the nation´s founding fathers and from World War II British
Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Supporters of a term-limits repeal said lawmakers have a duty in a republic
to pass good laws and repeal bad ones.

Opponents said the people have spoken repeatedly in support of term limits,
and that´s their right with a direct democracy tool such as the initiative
of 1994.

"I´m convinced in my heart of hearts that (term limits) is not in Idaho´s
best interests," House Speaker Bruce Newcomb said.

The eight-term rancher from Burley reiterated that states with term limits
are dominated by lobbyists and bureaucrats, and legislatures are weak
against their states´ governors.

"Our performance evaluation on each of us takes place every two years on the
first Tuesday of November," House Majority Leader Frank Bruneel of Lewiston
said.

But House Minority Caucus Chairwoman Margaret Henbest said other states are
doing well under term limits.

There´s more competition for seats, greater diversity and slower growth in
government, the Boise Democrat said.

Several legislators said they dislike the term-limits law, approved in 1994
by a voter initiative and reaffirmed with an advisory vote in 1998. But they
said they see no choice but to let the law stand.

"I want you to know I do not like term limits. I do not support term
limits," Caldwell freshman Darrell Bolz said, reflecting on a campaign
commitment he made in 2000. "But because I made that statement (supporting
the law), I will honor my word."

Another freshman, Montpelier Republican Eulalie Langford, said rural Idaho
would be lost without the ability to support lawmakers who rise to positions
of prominence at the Legislature.

"Sheer numbers tell us that the balance of power will rest in Ada County,"
Langford said. "This is not a vote about term limits. It´s a vote about
rural Idaho."

Iona Republican Tom Loertscher, in his eighth term, said the people have
decided to support term limits and acknowledged their position in 1998´s
advisory vote that lawmakers put on the ballot.

"We´re telling people we want to know what you think, but we really don´t
care what you think," Loertscher said.

Nampa Republican Robert Schaefer said term-limits supporters got tired of
picking off incumbents one by one.

He called term limits "a shotgun approach" or "more like a terrorist
approach."

Filer Republican Doug Jones, said repealing term limits is necessary because
it´s the best move for the state.

"Sometimes, you have to do what you believe is right," Jones said. "We have
to look at the total system, what´s right for the state of Idaho. If people
don´t like the way I vote, they should get rid of me."

"My sense is, I´m replaceable," Boise Republican David Callister said. "If
I´m not here, I think the state´s going to be OK."

Boise Republican Fred Tilman foresees no improvement in government under
term limits.

"I think it´s fundamentally wrong -- and I have yet to be convinced -- that
you can make a better system by limiting people´s access to the system,"
Tilman said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Governor vows to veto repeal of term limits

By Mark Warbis
The Associated Press What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the message board or send a letter to the editor.

Holding firm to the position he adopted two years ago, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne declared Tuesday that he would veto legislative leaders´ proposal to repeal all term limits for Idaho´s elected officials.

House Speaker Bruce Newcomb is not backing down.

"I told him, ´You can defend democracy; I´ll defend the republic,´" the Burley Republican said firmly after Kempthorne told reporters the message he gave key lawmakers Monday night.

Newcomb´s full-repeal bill was introduced Friday in the House State Affairs Committee. A public hearing is scheduled for Monday, and the speaker said he would continue promoting the proposal he contends is needed to lift an artificial restriction foisted on Idaho by out-of-state interests.

Kempthorne had not disclosed his position on repeal since the Idaho Supreme Court last month upheld the constitutionality of the initiative adopted by voters in 1994. He said he wanted to talk to legislative leadership first, and on Monday night they asked him pointedly whether he would let a repeal bill become law.

"I told them I would not. I would veto it," the governor said Tuesday.

"To me the issue is not the merits of term limits; it´s the process," he said. "I cannot in good conscience, having been elected by the people of this state, say that when they enact an initiative in that way, that we would then rescind it."

"God bless him," said Don Morgan, a Post Falls stockbroker and chairman of Citizens for Term Limits Idaho Campaign. "The man is doing what he said he would do in the beginning. I expected no less, and I applaud him for standing tall.

"Now it´s time for the Legislature to go back and do the people´s business instead of trying to undo the people´s law."

Instead of repeal, Kempthorne said he suggested to lawmakers that they put a constitutional amendment mandating term limits on the November ballot. "Then perhaps the people will speak out" if diminishing support for term limits has turned to opposition.

Newcomb and Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes of Soda Springs quickly rejected that idea, saying it was too unwieldy a solution to the loss of critical experience term limits would cause.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amendment would ban term limits in Idaho
Issue may be on the ballot in November

(THIS CAN'T BE DONE, BECAUSE IT WOULD ELIMINATE ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR BALLOT ACCESS. THAT MEANS A 10 YEAR OLD OR A NON-CITIZEN COULD RUN FOR GOVERNOR.
THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE U. S. CONSTITUTION. DANI)

By Wayne Hoffman
The Idaho Statesman

Rep. Bruce Newcomb

Legislators who days ago became the first in the nation to repeal term limits imposed by voters now want to make certain the issue never again gets a grip on Idaho government.

They´re working on a constitutional amendment that would appear on this November´s ballot, guaranteeing that, as part of their right of suffrage, Idahoans have a right to elect an incumbent as many times as they like.

If passed, the constitutional amendment would pre-empt and ultimately nullify a new term-limits initiative now circulating that would restrict the ability of veteran state officeholders to be on the ballot.

House Speaker Bruce Newcomb said the amendment would decide once and for all whether Idahoans have a right to run for office.

"Ultimately, that´s the real question," said the Republican rancher from Burley, who´s collaborating with a handful of other legislators on the proposal. "What constitutional rights do you have as a resident of the state?"

That was the question 6th District Judge Randy Smith addressed in 2000. The former state GOP chairman ruled that the Idaho Constitution guarantees "the right to vote, the right to hold office and the right to access the ballot in order to hold office."

The Idaho Supreme Court rejected Smith´s interpretation. It concluded unanimously in December that there is no explicit right to serve multiple terms and that the voter-approved 1994 term-limits statute was constitutional. Legislators last week repealed the statute, which would have limited the terms of many city, school, county and state officeholders.

Idaho term-limits campaign leader Don Morgan said the constitutional amendment legislators are talking about now is nothing more than a gambit to "take Randy Smith´s flawed ruling and enshrine it in law."

An amended state constitution would shift the entire debate.

Any subsequent term-limits statute -- whether passed by initiative or by a future Legislature -- would come up against the constitution´s new provisions and likely be found unconstitutional.

Such a constitutional amendment would be, "a vicious reaction to the will of the people," Morgan said.

Newcomb said the proposal does nothing more than define that the right to be on the ballot runs tandem with the right to vote.

"That´s a hard one to advertise against, I think," Newcomb said.

Seventeen states have term limits now that Idaho has deleted its ballot-access law. Most states address term limits in their constitutions. Only five address the length of terms in their state statutes.

The wording of Newcomb´s proposed amendment is not final, but in addition to guaranteeing the right to be on the ballot, it will have to accommodate current exceptions for age, felons and specific education requirements needed to run for specific offices.

Getting two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate is something Newcomb and Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes have proved they can do. Their chambers voted overwhelmingly to repeal the term-limits law and then override Gov. Dirk Kempthorne´s veto of the repeal.

Geddes said he hasn´t signed on to the proposal yet, but agrees that the state constitution is a good place to deal with the question of limiting terms.

Kempthorne said he doesn´t know what role he will play after the Legislature´s override of his veto, whether he will support the new term-limits initiative (which he said he hasn´t seen) or join the newest legislative incarnation of the debate.

Constitutional amendments do not require a signature from the governor.

"We´ve been consumed by term limits. I´d really like to get back to the business at hand," Kempthorne said Tuesday.

Morgan said he´s not sitting around waiting to see what the Legislature does next. He´s gathering signatures to get a new initiative to limit the terms of state officeholders on the ballot, considering a lawsuit against the state and thinking about the possibility of a referendum to see whether the term-limits repeal can be stalled until fall.

And while Morgan works on the initiative, a conglomeration of lobby groups calling itself Idahoans for Voter Rights is watching on the sidelines -- for now.

The group ran a large ad in The Idaho Statesman on Sunday, thanking legislators for their "great courage and commitment to stand strong on a controversial issue in the face of verbal threats and attacks."

It was signed by 30 organizations, among them the most powerful lobbies in the state.

Term limits "are arbitrary restrictions on our rights," said Steve Ahrens, president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry. He´s president of Idahoans for Voter Rights, the group that used to call itself Idahoans Against Term Limits.

"We want to do everything we can to protect the rights of Idaho votes," Ahrens said, though refusing to say what role the group will play in the months to come.

"But we think the more people learn about the widespread impact of term limits, the less support there is for term limits."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaker hopes to challenge term limits on House floor
Newcomb says Idaho voters were misled on initiatives

By Wayne Hoffman
The Idaho Statesman
Darin Oswald / The Idaho Statesman
Idaho House Speaker Bruce Newcomb talks with reporters following his request to the House State Affairs Committee to draft a bill that would eliminate term limits. The committee agreed unanimously to introduce the measure. There will be a hearing on the bill Friday.

What's next
The House State Affairs Committee will consider the measure at 9 a.m. Friday in Room 412. If the measure passes, it will go to the 70-member House for a debate and vote.

What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the message board or send a letter to the editor.

Supporters of a plan to repeal the state´s term limits law have enough votes on a key panel to move the bill to the House floor.

At least 10 lawmakers on the 19-member panel say they will act in favor of the measure when it comes up Friday for a vote.

The House State Affairs Committee, on a voice vote Friday, agreed unanimously to introduce the measure after a brief pitch by Speaker Bruce Newcomb of Burley. Newcomb acknowledged that the House GOP leadership plan to unilaterally wipe out term limits "presents some angst for some of you, and it does for myself."

Voters adopted the term limits initiative in 1994 and reaffirmed support for it in 1998.

But Newcomb said it´s a matter of principle, that voters have been misled into backing term limits and that Idaho politics are being toyed with by deep pockets from out of state.

"Most of the money came from U.S. Term Limits in Washington, D.C.," Newcomb said. He said the group figured Idaho was "a cheap state to buy.

"I want to point out that it´s a plank in the Republican Party platform" that term limits be repealed, he added.

Newcomb´s comments were met with disgust by Don Morgan, the head of the group Idaho Citizens for Term Limits.

"The people that are calling me are Idaho residents," Morgan said, defining the term limits campaign as grassroots.

"Who runs this state, the people of Idaho or the good ol´ boys? They´re lying. They´re desperate."

Newcomb said a hearing on his bill Friday will demonstrate that there´s plenty of turnover in government.

"The real term limit," he said, "should be at the ballot box."

Once the measure clears the State Affairs Committee, the legislators want 47 House members to endorse the proposal. That´s two-thirds -- the number needed to override a gubernatorial veto. Gov. Dirk Kempthorne once said he would veto a repeal of term limits. Lately, his public comments have been less specific. He said this week he wants to talk to legislators about the issue.

Friday morning, Newcomb told Boise business leaders talk isn´t on his mind. Getting the bill started in the legislative process is.

"At some point, if the governor wants to talk about it, we´ll talk," Newcomb said. "At this point, I´m not ready to talk."

Most State Affairs members have made up their minds about how they will vote. If term limits stay in place, "the bureaucrats and lobbyists are going to be in charge," said Ruby Stone, a nine-term retired property manager from Boise who hates term limits.

"I will not change the law," said Julie Ellsworth, a three-term Boise homemaker who is sticking with a term pledge she made.

Things are tougher for retired energy agency executive George Eskridge, who knows his constituents have strongly supported term limits. The Dover Republican´s emotions are mixed.

"If I had to guess right now, I still don´t know what I´ll do."

Don Morgan, head of Idaho Citizens for Term Limits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senate poised for a vote on term limits this week

By Wayne Hoffman
The Idaho Statesman
Gerry Melendez / The Idaho Statesman
Senate State Affairs Committee members Sen. Jim Risch, R-Boise, left, and Sen. Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, listen to Meridian's Lori Campbell testify in favor of term limits Monday inside the Statehouse.

Killeen won't run
Ada County Sheriff Vaughn Killeen said at Monday's Senate committee hearing that he won't seek re-election in 2004, even if term limits are repealed.

But Killeen said voters should be able to select the same sheriff repeatedly if that's what they want. He pointed to Republican Walt Femling, who has enjoyed a long run as Blaine County sheriff despite campaigning in a Democratic-dominated county.

Killeen also said he would like to see current sheriff's Capt. Gary Raney seek the Ada County sheriff's post.

What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the message board or send a letter to the editor.

National Conference of State Legislatures elsewhere - see what other states are dealing with term limits and examine efforts to repeal term limits

Senate leaders have moved the state closer to becoming the first legislature in the nation to repeal a term-limits law.

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 6-3 Monday in support of House Bill 425. The bill now goes to the Senate floor, where a vote could take place later this week.

At last count, senators have 23 or 24 votes in support of the measure. It will take 24 to override a promised veto from Gov. Dirk Kempthorne.

The term-limits repeal bill passed the House last week, 50-20.

Senate Democratic Floor Leader Clint Stennett of Ketchum joined Assistant GOP Floor Leader John Sandy of Hagerman and State Affairs Committee Chairwoman Sheila Sorensen of Boise in objecting to the proposal from House Republican leaders.

Term limits is "a dumb idea, probably," Stennett said, but added: "Term limits isn´t the issue here. The issue is a law that was brought by the people."

"I feel obligated to honor (the voters´) request," Sandy said. "I think a compromise could be reached on this legislation."

In more than two hours of testimony, most people spoke in favor of repealing term limits. The bulk of the opposition to the 1994 voter-approved law came from elected leaders who said term limits will be devastating to law enforcement, school boards, county commissions and prosecutors´ offices.

"When you see a train wreck about to happen and you can intervene, you need to do so," Canyon County Prosecutor David Young said.

The state´s term-limits law doesn´t prevent elected officials from serving. Instead, it says that once an in incumbent has served a certain number of years in office, the candidate cannot have his or her name appear on the ballot. The candidate may still run a write-in campaign. The law puts the ballot access restriction on at six years in the past 11 for county commissioners and school board members, and eight years in the last 15 for other state, county and city offices.

Esther Smith of Weiser said legislators and local elected officials should stop the bellyaching about losing their jobs. "I´ve never heard so many insecure people in all my born days," Smith said. "We voted this in. It is legal, and we want it."

Conservative activist Dennis Mansfield, speaking as chairman of the group Voice of the People, said, "When you lose, you need to respect the people who beat you and move on."

Mansfield said term-limits supporters are not budging. "Our heels are not only dug in, they´re cast in concrete," Mansfield said.

Ada County Commissioner Sharon Ullman said she believes that the Legislature´s act of repealing term limits would be unconstitutional because the state constitution gives the people the ability to pass laws independent of the Legislature. Others said lawmakers have an absolute duty to strike down laws that are not in the state´s best interest.

"Wrong doesn´t become right just because the voters approved it," Coeur d´Alene attorney Jerry Mason said.

Senate Majority Leader Jim Risch of Boise said the decision to support a repeal of term limits isn´t hard for him. He told voters in 2000 he would vote to rescind the law whenever he had the opportunity.

"It would be arrogant for me to vote any other way," Risch said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Kempthorne vetoes repeal of term limits
Speaker certain he has enough votes to override

By Wayne Hoffman
The Idaho Statesman
Darin Oswald / The Idaho Statesman
Gov. Dirk Kempthorne stamps VETO on House Bill 425, which would repeal the voter-approved term limits law, at a news conference Thursday afternoon in his office at the Statehouse. The House will consider overriding his veto today. If the House votes to override the veto, the Senate appears ready to do the same.

What's next

The House is expected to consider overriding the governor's veto at 8 a.m. today in the House chambers. If the House votes to override the veto, the bill will be sent to the Senate, and senators expect to act on it as early as 9 a.m.

See how other states are dealing with term limits and read our legislative coverage. Check us online today for the latest news on the term limits story.
What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the message board or send a letter to the editor.

Gov. Dirk Kempthorne dabbed his stamp in ink Thursday and planted the word "VETO" in crimson across the pages of House Bill 425 -- rejecting a repeal of Idaho´s term-limits law and setting up a showdown with lawmakers this morning.

Kempthorne, with reporters looking on, stuck to his promise to veto any bill that would wipe out the law voters approved in 1994 and reaffirmed in 1998.

"It´s not as though this is a surprise," Kempthorne said. "I´m fulfilling what I said I´d do."

The bill arrived in Kempthorne´s office at 11:54 a.m. Less than four hours later, Kempthorne had it marked dead -- at least for the time being.

The bill will return to the House this morning, where lawmakers are expected to consider overriding the veto. House Speaker Bruce Newcomb predicted 51 votes would be cast to overrule Kempthorne.

The bill passed the House 50 to 20 last week. It will take 47 votes to override the veto.

Despite rumors to the contrary, Newcomb said not a single legislator has told him of plans to abandon the majority that voted to repeal the term-limits law.

If Kempthorne´s veto is overridden in the House, the Senate is poised to follow suit this morning, Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes said. The bill passed 27 to 8 Wednesday in the Senate, where it takes 24 votes to override the governor´s veto.

If the Legislature is successful, it would become the first in the nation to eliminate term limits.

Kempthorne said in his veto message that he "cannot in good conscience allow this act of direct democracy to be wiped off the books by the mere stroke of my pen. Today, I affirm the power vested in the people."

"In a republic, the people cannot be disenfranchised from establishing rules when they deem it necessary," Kempthorne wrote. "That principle is reinforced in the Idaho State Constitution which declares that ´all political power is inherent in the people.´"

Newcomb and Kempthorne described the standoff between the legislative and executive branches as cordial. Neither criticized the other for how the term-limits debate has evolved, even though in the end it pits the Republican governor against the nation´s most Republican legislature.

"You can have good people that honestly have a different view and reach a different conclusion," Kempthorne said.

"This is just basically a friendly, amicable difference between the governor and myself," Newcomb said.

The governor said he did not plan to lobby lawmakers to side with him.

Newcomb said that´s in keeping with a promise that neither side would twist arms before votes are cast. The speaker said he won´t call his GOP supermajority into a pre-vote caucus to make sure the numbers are all in.

"I´m reasonably confident," Newcomb said. "I´m sure at this point we have more than enough votes we need. But I don´t take anything for granted."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan Popkey:
Decision on term limits is finally where it belongs
INTERESTING OPINION
Dan Popkey

What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the message board or send a letter to the editor.

After seven years of hoping somebody else would save their skins, Idaho lawmakers are finally moving to take responsibility for repealing voter-approved term limits.

On Friday, House Speaker Bruce Newcomb stood before the House State Affairs Committee and said voters got snookered in 1994 by out-of-state interests.

I think he´s largely right, but what he didn´t mention is how U.S. Term Limits got aid and comfort from some of the same Idaho Republicans now in position to secure a repeal of a law.

Chief among them is Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, who in 1992 made term limits part of his successful upset campaign for the U.S. Senate against four-term Democrat Rep. Richard Stallings.

Kempthorne stoked the sentiment that term limits were the only way left to end a 40-year dominance of Congress by Democrats.

Two years later, on Nov. 8, 1994, conservative Republicans across Idaho voted for the term limits initiative that covered everybody from Congress to the Legislature to local school boards.

Newcomb had it right Friday when he recalled the pitch of petitioners in 1994: "How would you like to get rid of Ted Kennedy?"

Ironically, in that same election, the GOP finally won the U.S. House, making Newt Gingrich speaker and winning a key objective of Idaho term limits backers.

As it turned out, the U.S. Supreme Court later said states have no authority to limit terms on Congress, leaving legislatures across the country to wrestle with surviving limits imposed on state and local officials.

In Idaho, they didn´t have the guts to admit they didn´t mean all that stuff they said about term limits clearing out entrenched incumbents to apply to them.

For a time, they hoped voters would come to their senses. Instead, they affirmed term limits in 1996 and 1998, though the margin declined to 53 percent.

In 1999, term limit foes went to newly elected Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, but he said he´d veto a repeal bill.

In 2000, they found a more friendly venue, the courtroom of 6th District Judge Randy Smith, a former Idaho GOP Chairman. Smith nixed term limits as unconstitutional, but last month a unanimous Idaho Supreme Court overturned him.

Finally, the decision to repeal is where it belongs.

"If you believe in it, you start it, you get the train on the tracks," said Newcomb, the tardiest of engineers, after he got his repeal bill introduced this past week.

"It is where it belongs," said State Affairs Committee Chairman Bill Deal, R-Nampa, who was so anxious to get Newcomb´s bill started he began Friday´s meeting early.

But how to accomplish the delicate task of telling voters they got it wrong?

Last summer´s GOP convention put repeal in the platform, providing some cover in the most Republican of states.

Pressure from a phalanx of interest groups that packed the hearing room Friday -- business, farmers, local officials -- also helps.

The simple truth that the law will bar 60 percent of county officials -- many of them quite popular -- from ballots this year should be persuasive.

But the biggest obstacle is Kempthorne, who is playing his cards close to the vest. Newcomb and Senate President Pro Tem Bob Geddes haven´t checked to see if he´s changed his mind.

"We haven´t even asked him yet," Geddes said. "I don´t want to get too far out on the curve here."

Senate State Affairs Committee Chairwoman Sheila Sorensen, R-Boise, fears a veto. "I´d like all-out repeal, but I want to be a realist."

She´s contemplating splitting the issue because Kempthorne has made sympathetic noises about repeal for local officials. She´s also mulling a compromise to extend the limit for legislators from eight to 12 years.

Both Newcomb and Geddes say they haven´t counted noses to see if they have the two-thirds majorities to override a veto. Both say they won´t twist any arms.

They really mean, "Not yet, anyway."

Rep. David Callister, R-Boise, is a term limits supporter who has suffered for bucking leadership. He knows how seriously they want repeal.

"If the two-thirds is necessary and it´s close, leadership has put down the gauntlet," Callister said. "If this doesn´t pass, all their power is gone. I don´t see what they have to lose."

Precisely. Now that they finally have the issue in the right arena, repeal is the standard by which Newcomb and Geddes will measure success of this session.

Dan Popkey´s opinion column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. He also appears on KBCI-Channel 2 News on Thursday nights. To reach Dan: 377-6438
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Legislators ready to take on term limits
Some say they must look beyond voters' stand on the issue

By Mark Warbis
The Associated Press By district: How they voted
Here is how Idaho's 35 legislative districts voted on the 1994 ballot initiative establishing term limits, and the 1998 advisory vote reaffirming support for the law. The numbers represent the percentage of vote in each district for the ballot measure. The first column is the 1994 vote and the second column the 1998 vote.
BY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
VOTE 1994 1998

District 1- 65.2 58.9

District 2- 72.7 62.8

District 3 -70.8 60.7

District 4- 65.4 59.4

District 5 -56.7 52.1

District 6- 60.1 56.0

District 7- 55.4 48.4

District 8 -57.3 53.3

District 9- 60.2 53.3

District 10- 63.7 57.5

District 11- 65.1 56.4

District 12- 65.1 56.6

District 13- 59.6 53.4

District 14- 65.7 56.7

District 15 -64.3 56.4

District 16- 61.5 55.3

District 17- 60.9 55.9

District 18 -66.9 56.0

District 19- 51.9 50.5

District 20- 60.7 54.6

District 21- 54.3 53.2

District 22 -65.0 52.0

District 23- 62.2 49.8

District 24- 60.0 49.7

District 25- 58.4 47.7

District 26- 52.2 49.1

District 27- 52.6 48.1

District 28- 51.8 48.6

District 29- 52.4 44.5

District 30- 52.5 44.9

District 31- 48.9 45.3

District 32- 46.2 46.2

District 33- 56.6 52.9

District 34- 55.4 51.1

District 35- 51.4 48.9

What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the message board or send a letter to the editor.

State Rep. Mary Lou Shepherd recently wrote letters to the editors of five newspapers in her northern Idaho district, asking constituents for guidance on the hottest issue of the legislative session.

She badly wanted help deciding how to vote on repeal of the term-limits law adopted by ballot initiative in 1994. Idaho would be the first state to repeal statewide term limits.

"I´ve always felt that I´m here to vote not for myself but for the people," the Wallace Democrat said. "I´m here to represent them. And whether I like what they have to say or not, that´s the way I vote."

Shepherd is on the 19-member House State Affairs Committee, which will host what figures to be a crowded, lively public hearing before considering preliminary approval of the repeal measure today. Each member must decide whether to reflect what they think is the will of the people or act in what they consider to be the people´s best interest. For the lucky ones, either course leads to the same conclusion. For most, there is no easy option.

"They elected me to come down and be a spokesman for them," said Republican Rep. Dick Harwood of St. Maries. "But it´s the kind of deal where whichever way you vote, you´re wrong to half of them."

The measure promoted by Speaker Bruce Newcomb and the rest of the House´s Republican leadership has more than enough support to clear State Affairs today and the full House later. The Senate also is ready to sign on, forcing GOP Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to act on his recently renewed pledge to veto the repeal.

The only real question is whether both chambers can muster and sustain the two-thirds vote needed to override the promised veto. While they officially regret such a confrontation, House leaders were almost gleeful last week in assessing their chances of winning it.

If State Affairs is any indication, their confidence is justified.

Even if the opposition reaches half a dozen votes today, all but one will be halfhearted at best. GOP Rep. Julie Ellsworth of Boise said she told her constituents, who approved term limits in 1994 and again in a 1998 advisory vote, that she would never vote to change the law they enacted.

"If you´re representing people and you promise something, you keep your promise," she said.

The law Ellsworth pledged to protect limits the ballot access of all state, city and most county officers to eight years in any 15-year period. County commissioners and school trustees are limited to six years in any 11-year period. Term-limited incumbents can still seek re-election via write-in campaign, but the body politic is certain to get fresh blood.

Eleven State Affairs members will be barred from the ballot in 2004, if they are still in the House then, unless the law is repealed. But those include Ellsworth and Democratic Floor Leader Wendy Jaquet of Ketchum, who will vote against repeal despite her personal opposition to term limits. She would rather delay implementation and put the issue before voters again.

However, she is among those who -- like Kempthorne -- feel they cannot entirely disregard what the electorate did in 1994, 1998 and in 1996 and 1998 measures aimed at putting candidates´ term-limits stands on the ballot.

"The people put this in place, and they´re the same people who elected us," the governor said in explaining his decision to oppose repeal.

Some legislators, fearful of the added influence without accountability that term limits would give bureaucrats and lobbyists, seem ready to risk voter outrage in what they consider the best interest of state and local government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FEB 9, 2002
GOP gets leery of term limits
Newcomb says state's lawmakers 'need time to heal'

By Wayne Hoffman
The Idaho Statesman

House Republicans may be unwilling to deal with term limits again this session.

Members of the House GOP caucus met behind closed doors earlier this week and discussed the possibility of a constitutional amendment that addresses the question once and for all by guaranteeing the right of voters to pick the same elected official for a job over and over.

House Speaker Bruce Newcomb said the GOP supermajority in the House didn´t take a position on the issue, but members still appear to be dealing with their controversial votes of the past two weeks.

"Some do. Some don´t," Newcomb said when asked if they´re willing to do it all over again.

"It´s a very emotional issue. We need time to heal."

Last week, Idaho lawmakers became the first in the nation to repeal term limits, overriding a gubernatorial veto to get there.

Shortly after the victory, legislators began contemplating a constitutional amendment.

But caucus members -- even die-hard term limits opponents -- said Friday they´re just not interested in taking up term limits another time.

Some said the issue is resolved. Some said a move for a constitutional amendment would confuse voters, because the measure would compete with a second term-limits initiative that might be on the ballot in November.

Some said it would just appear arrogant.

"My sense is that we´re done" with the issue, Debbie Field of Boise said.

"The timing may not be right," Todd Hammond of Rexburg said.

Even Nampan Bill Deal, who has long fought term limits, said the cause should be put to rest, at least for now.

"I think at this time, we don´t need to do further action on this issue," Deal said.

Eulalie Langford of Montpelier said she could go either way, but she would not mind seeing a properly worded constitutional amendment put to the Legislature.

Monty Pearce of New Plymouth said the best way for legislators to close the issue is to bring the constitutional amendment forward and get it on the ballot.

It would take a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate for the amendment to go to the voters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FEB. 26, 2002
Analysis: Backlash from term limits vote may be unsettling
Conservatives face fractured ranks after law's repeal

By Mark Warbis
The Associated Press

Most legislators are used to criticism from those with whom they have ideological disagreements. Some even invite it as a test of their political courage and an affirmation of their core beliefs.

But when barbs are thrown by traditional allies -- people they´ve worked with on tough issues in the past -- even conservatives can get the blues.

"Sometimes they´ll say, ´You´ve done an excellent job. You´ve been one of the best conservative votes down there. If it wasn´t for you we wouldn´t have tax cuts,´ on and on and on," said Republican Rep. Mike Moyle of Star. "And in the next breath it´s, ´You dirty S.O.B., you´re FIRED.´ "

Such is the fate of lawmakers such as Moyle and fellow House Revenue and Taxation Chairman Dolores Crow of Nampa.

Both are committed conservatives who believe in smaller government. They led the fight for tax cuts during the two previous sessions of the Legislature, when the state´s coffers were overflowing.

Then last month they voted to repeal the term-limits law approved by ballot initiative in 1994. And on Feb. 1 they voted to override Gov. Dirk Kempthorne´s veto of the repeal legislation.

Suddenly they were getting angry letters, e-mails and phone calls. They no longer were the darlings of the right.

"We´re happy about what they´ve done with tax cuts. We´re happy that they´ve pushed for education tax credits. But we´re very disappointed with their vote to repeal what the people voted for," said Laird Maxwell of Idahoans for Tax Reform.

Crow, a 10-term Republican, made her decision long ago. She contends her legislative votes are based on personal beliefs, not a conservative agenda.

She thinks restricting the ballot access of elected officials is bad for Idaho, and that the people promoting term limits are -- at best -- misguided.

"If you look at who´s running this whipping-it-up deal, it´s all wannabes, has-beens, can´t-bes. So they´re -- excuse the term -- losers," Crow said. "This is the way that they get their name in the paper and their issue, if they have one, in front of everybody."

One of those "whipping it up" against term-limits opponents is Don Morgan, a Post Falls stockbroker, Kootenai County GOP Central Committee member and chairman of Citizens for Term Limits Idaho Campaign.

Morgan said he has nothing against Moyle, Crow, or any conservative who supported repeal. They are just good people who made a bad mistake. It will not be his fault if they have to pay for it at the polls. But he understands the anger over what he contends was a fundamental violation of the public trust.

"They turned their backs on us. Should we just say, ´Well, that´s OK?´ " Morgan asked. "It´s not me. It´s 1.3 million people who live in Idaho. It´s our Constitution. It´s the rule of law."

Moyle, in only his second term, would love to argue the merits of term limits. But he knows the debate has moved beyond whether new ideas or experience are more important for good government. It has become a question of legislative arrogance, the people´s will and the politics of power.

Moyle expects all the emotion to generate a re-election challenge from the far right.

Crow, more seasoned and at least outwardly less concerned about perceptions, said she does not fear a possible primary opponent. What bothers her is how personal and ill-mannered the attacks sometimes get. At a recent Republican Women´s luncheon, a term-limits zealot "got up and ranted and raved and literally was very abusive, very unnerving to everyone in the room."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letters to the Editor: Term-limits
Term-limits laziness

It would be really amusing if it weren´t so sad. The large number of outraged people currently writing about the Legislature repealing term limits don´t seem to realize that their reaction and proposed action serve to prove that there is no need for term limits.

Invariably, they propose to vote the rascals out, which is exactly the way the system is supposed to work. If enough registered voters feel strongly that any given office holder isn´t doing the job right, then they have, and have always had, the ability to vote someone else to the position. It´s called term limitation, aka walking the talk.

The two Idaho term limits initiatives (funded by our-of-state interests and voted in by a minority of registered voters) were basically a refuge for the lazy, pure and simple.

Tom Nagle, Eagle

A sad necessity

As a lifelong Republican and opponent of term limits, I now see the light. Term limits are sadly necessary. While our state is floundering in layoffs and budget cuts, our wonderful legislative bodies have spent the last month securing their retirements. I am originally from the Chicago area, and I thought I had seen it all with the Democratic machine under the Daleys. This group makes them look like rookies. Recently, I was embarrassed and sad to be a Republican. With this new evidence of their self-serving mindset among our legislators, I am mad.

It is apparent to me that after overturning our vote and implying we were too stupid to understand what we voted for, it is time to enact the only term limits these egomaniacs will understand. We must vote them out before they legislate themselves life terms.

Bill Kasten, Nampa

Career politicos

Politicians protecting your rights. Bull. Repealed Idaho statutes 33-443, 34-907, and 50-478 limit the number of times a person is "eligible to have their name placed upon a special or general election ballot."

They do not prohibit you from writing in the name of your choice -- to quote the statutes: "... nor shall any provision of this section be construed as preventing or prohibiting any person from standing or campaigning for any elective office by means of a ´write-in´ campaign."

Competent officials could campaign and be elected repeatedly as write-in candidates. Then why the repeal? Politicians know most voters pick the name printed on the ballot that matches the party of their choice. And, availability of campaign funds -- money. It´s hard to get special interest campaign money if your name is not pre-printed on the general ballot as affiliated with the elephants or donkeys.

This repeal is arrogance by career politicians, but they know the voter won´t remember by the next election. They know that you (my fellow voters) don´t care enough to become and stay informed, but instead rely on the "news media spin." Business as usual -- I think they will be safe in the next election.

Kathleen McCoy, Boise

The law is printed below these articles.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR-TWIN FALLS
Majority voted for term limits
      What is it that these current politicians and elected officials don't understand about the voting process? I'm sure that they would have a different story if their opponents were given their positions even if they didn't have the majority of the votes. Seems like they are a little two-faced.
      The majority voted for term limits and that is the way it must stand. Remove these career politicians that don't listen to the people anyway. They get set in their ways and do as they want and not what the people want.
      Many of the people being eliminated by the term limits will not quit politics anyway; they will just run for another political position. It is about time that the elected officials listen to the voters, and this is a start.
      GARY HUNTINGTON
      Buhl

T-N should show respect for voters
      Your editorial on term limits is showing no respect to the voters of this great state. The voters voted a majority for term limits. Now the crybabies want to overturn what is a legal vote.
      If Gov. Kempthorne doesn't veto or if the Republican-controlled Legislature overturns the law, I am voting strictly Democratic or non-incumbent.
      Let me assure you that since World War II, I have voted Republican most of the time. We have two county commissioners that never have seen a bad dairy and this old talk that nobody can replace the people losing their jobs -- give me a break. There's nobody in this country that cannot be replaced by someone else.
      Most of the county politicians right now are replacements that the Republican Central appointed, so I don't think they have a right to complain. They figure once they are appointed, they have a lifetime job.
      Here's hoping most of the voters reading this will do as I will.
      BROY G. HARDING
      Twin Falls

If lawmakers alter term limits law, backers to respond
Associated Press

BOISE -- Term limits advocates plan a two-pronged attack if the Legislature tinkers with or repeals the state law recently found constitutional by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Don Morgan, a Post Falls stockbroker and chairman of Citizens for Term Limits Idaho Campaign, said on Thursday that both a referendum and an initiative could be placed before voters next November to restore the law and punish lawmakers.

“If the Legislature wants my opinion, they'll do the people's business and not undo the people's vote,'' Morgan said.

House Speaker Bruce Newcomb said he had anticipated such a move and was researching a response

Legislators have been considering their options since the Supreme Court on Dec. 13 voided 6th District Judge Randy Smith's finding that the initiative approved in 1994 violated voters' right to cast ballots for the candidates of their choice.

The court agreed with the state and Citizens for Term Limits that there is no fundamental right to be a candidate for office, and that the Idaho Constitution clearly allows the Legislature or the people to restrict ballot access.

Lawmakers would not be affected by term limits until 2004, but they still might try to repeal the law during the session that starts Jan. 7 despite Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's past statements that he would veto any attempt to counter the stated will of the electorate.

Prompting the urgency for action is the prospect of 158 elected county officials and an unknown number of local school board members being barred from the ballot in 2002.

Besides outright repeal, another approach being discussed is amending the law to delay its implementation, then putting another advisory measure on the ballot to gauge continuing voter support for term limits.

Public backing for restricting the service of elected officials has declined each of the three times a related measure has been on the ballot since 1994. A 1996 advisory vote won 53 percent support.

But Morgan said term limits advocates, in Idaho and nationally, will spare no expense to ensure the law remains in place.

An initiative proposed for the November ballot would restrict lawmakers to 12 years of total service in the Legislature in a 15-year period. The current law limits service to eight years in one chamber or the other in the previous 15 years, but allows lawmakers to start a new eight-year period by shifting between the House and Senate.

A new wrinkle is the idea of launching a referendum drive if the Legislature changes the law during the 2002 session. Morgan said the measure might block enforcement of any change lawmakers enact until voters weigh in next November.

“We're still looking at the technical details, but if this is a correct

approach we're going to pursue it, and that means that term limits will take place for at least county officeholders for at least 2002,'' he said.

Getting such a referendum on the ballot would require gathering the signatures of 38,125 registered voters -- a number equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the last general election -- within 60 days of the Legislature's adjournment.

“We're going to load both weapons, and we'll use whatever's most appropriate, or both,'' Morgan said.

Only three referendums have been attempted in Idaho. In 1936, voters rejected a 2-cent sales tax approved by the Legislature; in 1966, they approved a 3-cent sales tax enacted by lawmakers; and in 1986 voters endorsed a right-to-work law passed by the Legislature.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

==================================================
The Idaho Statesman November 3, 2001

Advocates argue for term limits
High court hears appeal of ruling against initiative

By Mark Warbis
The Associated Press What do you think? Post your comments about this story on the message board or send a letter to the editor.

Term limits advocates argued on Friday that there is no fundamental right to be a candidate for office, and that the Idaho Constitution clearly allows lawmakers -- or the people -- to restrict access to the ballot.

Deputy Attorney General Jim Carlson and a lawyer for Citizens for Term Limits urged the Idaho Supreme Court to reverse 6th District Judge Randy Smith's decision voiding the term limits initiative approved by voters in 1994.

They said to do otherwise would be legitimizing a right the Constitution does not recognize while disregarding the electorate's repeatedly expressed desire to ensure their government is periodically infused with new ideas.

"I implore the court in this instance to let democracy work," Carlson said.

But attorneys for legislative leaders and local elected officials said that would violate voters' right to cast ballots for the candidates of their choice, and would deny veteran officeholders their constitutional suffrage rights.

"It's scary for me to hear somebody say that we have to throw out the Constitution in order to have democracy survive," said University of Idaho law professor Dennis Colson, representing House Speaker Bruce Newcomb, Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes and their supporters in Burley and Soda Springs.

Both sides hope the five-member Supreme Court will rule on the question before the March 25 start of candidate filing for the 2002 election.

Justice Daniel Eismann sat with his colleagues to hear the arguments, despite the fact that term limits advocates spent more than $52,000 helping get him elected last year.

If the law is upheld, dozens of local officials would be barred from appearing on the ballot for re-election next spring. Legislators would first be affected in 2004, according to an attorney general's opinion. Term-limited officeholders, however, could still run as write-in candidates or seek other offices.

The initiative, approved by 59 percent of voters in 1994, limits the service of county commissioners and school trustees to six years in any 11-year period. All other state, county and city officers are limited to eight years of service in any 15-year period. A bid to limit federal service in Congress was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995.

Leading lawmakers pushed for repeal of term limits for state and local offices, most pointedly during the Legislature's 2000 session. But they were stymied by Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's threat to veto any legislation that contravened what he interpreted as the people's will.

The Republican governor stuck to that position despite steadily eroding voter support for term limits since 1994 and last year's call from his own party for its repeal. Ultimately, a lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 city, county and school district officeholders led to Smith's decision striking it down.

The former state GOP chairman wrote that suffrage rights guaranteed by the Idaho Constitution include "the right to vote, the right to hold office and the right to access the ballot in order to hold office."

Smith found that the initiative infringes on those rights by preventing candidates' names from appearing on the ballot after they have held the office for a set number of terms.

His decision applied directly to local offices. But an attorney general's opinion in August held that "if the legal validity of the district court's rationale is accepted, it would seem that the decision would apply equally to any statutorily imposed term limit restrictions on any elected official in Idaho."

The high court has voided two other initiatives aimed at indicating on the ballot whether a candidate supports or opposes term limits. One was ruled an infringement on the fundamental right to vote and the other as violating the right to unfettered legislative speech by penalizing lawmakers opposing term limits.

On Friday, Carlson repeatedly referred to including ballot access within the definition of suffrage as an "alleged right" created by Smith through tortured legal reasoning without foundation in the Constitution or court precedent.

The right of suffrage "means only the right to vote," he said.

And even if ballot access is a suffrage right, Carlson said, the Idaho Constitution authorizes the Legislature to place "qualifications, limitations and conditions" on those rights. "Why do the voters, by initiative, not have that same opportunity?"

But Coeur d'Alene attorney Scott Reed, representing the local officeholders who challenged the initiative, said the law imposes an absolute prohibition on ballot access that goes well beyond setting age and residency requirements for candidates.

"It has nothing to do with whether you're qualified. It's simply saying, 'No, you can't go there anymore,' " Reed said.

He argued that the provision allowing additional qualifications for suffrage is archaic language that was intended by framers of the Idaho Constitution to keep Mormon settlers from voting in Idaho. It should not be applied to the suffrage rights of otherwise "qualified electors."

Colson said his clients and other veteran officeholders should not sacrifice their right to seek office because of their electoral success and popularity with voters.

But Carlson said that was overstating the impact of term limits. Longtime officeholders are not disqualified from being re-elected, he said, but only barred from appearing on the ballot in pursuit of re-election.

"If it was a disqualification, they could never win," Carlson said. "They can win here, by write-in."

==================================================

SPOKESMAN REVIEW Saturday, November 3, 2001

Term limits controversy about rights
High court hearing arguments over state's successful 1994 term limits voter initiative
Related stories

Betsy Z. Russell - Staff writer

BOISE _ Term limits advocates argued on Friday that there is no fundamental right under the Idaho Constitution to be a candidate for office.

Deputy Attorney General Jim Carlson and a lawyer for Citizens for Term Limits urged the Idaho Supreme Court to reverse an earlier ruling that voided term limits. Sixth District Judge Randy Smith voided the term limits initiative approved by voters in 1994.

"Judge Smith found a new right ... he found a fundamental right to be a politician," Carlson told the Idaho Supreme Court. Carlson described the lower-court judge's reasoning as "tortured."

"I implore the court in this instance to let democracy work," Carlson said.

"It's scary for me to hear somebody say that we have to throw out the constitution in order to have democracy survive," said University of Idaho law professor Dennis Colson, representing House Speaker Bruce Newcomb, Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes and their supporters in Burley and Soda Springs.

The Supreme Court's justices sat quietly through most of the term limits supporters' arguments, but repeatedly interrupted the other side with probing questions and comments.

"I don't take anything out of the fact that the questions were only to one side," said Coeur d'Alene attorney Scott Reed, who argued on behalf of local officials. "I think both sides have presented to the court the entire issue."

Both sides hope the five-member Supreme Court will rule on the question before the March 25 start of candidate filing for the 2002 election. Justice Daniel Eismann sat with his colleagues to hear the arguments and participated in the questioning, despite the fact that term limits advocates spent more than $52,000 helping get him elected last year.

Those supporters had mounted an independent campaign, and Eismann has said he doesn't think the expenditure should keep him from hearing the case.

If the law is upheld, many local officials across the state -- including Kootenai County Commissioner Ron Rankin and Kootenai County Clerk Dan English -- couldn't run for re-election in this spring's primary election. Half of Idaho's lawmakers would appear on the ballot for the last time.

"This decision will have as much impact on the future of government in Idaho as any that has ever occurred in our history," said state Controller J.D. Williams. Williams, who sat in the overflow crowd watching the arguments Friday, intervened in the case along with state Treasurer Ron Crane, asking that any decision in the case apply to statewide elected officials along with legislators and local officials.

Don Morgan, head of Hayden Lake-based Citizens for Term Limits, said, "I thought our counsel did a brilliant job. ... This is a big case, this is a very important case. It will decide whether we're going to let judges invent new rights and change our constitution."

The initiative, approved by 59 percent of voters in 1994, limits the service of county commissioners and school trustees to six years in any 11-year period. All other state, county and city officers are limited to eight years of service in any 15-year period. A bid to limit federal service in Congress was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995.

The Legislature has repeatedly considered modifying or repealing the term limits law, but hasn't done so, stopped in part by a veto threat from Gov. Dirk Kempthorne. Ultimately, a lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 city, county and school district officeholders led to Smith's decision striking it down.

Smith found that the initiative infringes on those rights by preventing candidates' names from appearing on the ballot after they have held the office for a set number of terms.

On Friday, Carlson said the Idaho Constitution authorizes the Legislature to place "qualifications, limitations, and conditions" on suffrage rights. "Why do the voters, by initiative, not have that same opportunity?"

But Reed argued that the law imposes an absolute prohibition on ballot access that goes well beyond setting age and residency requirements for candidates.

"It has nothing to do with whether you're qualified. It's simply saying, `No, you can't go there anymore,"' Reed said.

He said the provision allowing additional qualifications for suffrage is archaic language that was intended by framers of the Idaho Constitution to keep Mormon settlers from voting in Idaho.

Colson said his clients and other veteran officeholders should not sacrifice their right to seek office because of their electoral success and popularity with voters.

But Carlson said that was overstating the impact of term limits. Longtime officeholders still can run as write-ins, he noted.
**********************************

Idaho Statutes
                                 TITLE 34
                                 ELECTIONS
                                 CHAPTER 9
                                  BALLOTS
34-907. LIMITATION OF BALLOT ACCESS FOR MULTI-TERM INCUMBENTS.
(1) A person shall not be eligible to have his or her name placed upon the primary
or general election ballot for a county, state or federal office which they
have previously held if they have served, will serve or but for resignation
would have served, in that same office by the end of the current term of
office for a length of time as follows
    a. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing any
    district within the state, during six (6) or more of the previous eleven
    (11) years.
    b. As a member of the U.S. Senate, during twelve (12) or more of the
    previous twenty[-]three (23) years.
    c. As a state elected official, during eight (8) or more of the previous
    fifteen (15) years.
    d. As a state legislator, representing any district within the state,
    including all House seats within the same district, during eight (8) or
    more of the previous fifteen (15) years.
    e. As a county commissioner, representing any district within the county,
    during six (6) or more of the previous eleven (11) years.
    f. As any other county elected official, during eight (8) or more of the
    previous [fifteen] (15) years.
    (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any
qualified voter of this state from casting a ballot in a general election for
any person by writing the name of that person on any ballot, or as prohibiting
such a properly marked general election ballot from being counted or
tabulated, nor shall any provision of this section be construed as preventing
or prohibiting any person from standing or campaigning for any elective office
by means of a "write-in" campaign in a general election.