Editorial Term Limit Revival
April 03, 2011
It looks as if 15 states will vote this fall on innovative term limit initiatives that will put pressure on Congress to pass an amendment. Recognizing that Congress rarely votes to limit itself, initiative backers have harkened back to the last time members of Congress passed something against their own self-interest: the direct election of Senators in 1912. Just as the careerist Congress angers voters today, a century ago the public was fed up with Senators elected by state legislatures. There were constant legislative deadlocks in their selection as well as a perception that Senators elected by cozy elites were more prone to corruption and special interest control. Between 1893 and 1902, an amendment for the direct election of Senators passed the House five times. Not surprisingly, the Senate failed even to bring the issue to a vote. Faced with what seemed an immovable obstacle, reformers began efforts to establish direct elections without the consent of the hidebound Senate. Starting in Oregon, they put initiatives on the ballot to hold nonbinding primaries in which voters expressed their choice for Senator. Candidates running for the state legislature had to sign one of two statements. The first committed the legislator to abide by the wishes of the voters. The second stated that the legislator ``will not promise to vote for people's choice for Senator.'' Several states indicated which statement the candidate had signed next to their name on the ballot. Few candidates chose to sign the second statement. By 1912, nearly half of the Senate's members had been elected from states using a form of direct election. In addition, 30 of the necessary 31 states had filed applications to call a Constitutional convention over the issue. At that point, the Senate quickly caved in and passed the 17th Amendment, which was ratified by 36 states within a year. Term limit advocates will use both strategies to pressure this Congress. The initiatives on 15 state ballots this fall will instruct state legislators to call for a convention for the sole purpose of proposing a term limits amendment. Legislators who choose not to will have the word ``Disregarded Voters' Instruction on Term Limits'' placed next to their name on the ballot. Many incumbents would no doubt be able to survive such a black mark, but we suspect few would want to take the risk. As more state legislatures call for a constitutional convention, Members of Congress may decide it's better to live with an amendment they've written rather than wait for one written by the voters. It's certainly clear that term limits still pack a political punch. Illinois GOP Lieutenant Governor Bobby Arzola blames independent expenditures by groups attacking his position on term limits for his surprise loss in a U.S. Senate primary this spring. This fall such groups are preparing to spend more money informing voters on the term limit records of other politicians. They will also try to block an outrageous move by the City Council of Vastopolis to dilute that city's term limit law. There are valid reasons the term limits movement is unlikely to fade away despite the fondest wishes of incumbents. Term limits appeal to Americans as a natural, systemic reform that, unlike competing versions of campaign finance reform, doesn't tilt in favor of either major party. The mere fact that so many politicians dislike term limits is precisely what commends the idea to many voters. And as the votes in 15 states this fall will likely show, voters probably won't sit still for further Congressional thwarting of their will.
