Rugged Individualism
The Repeal
The Override
Consequences Unknown

California Voters Remain Fixed on Term Limits

Bruce Newcomb had become the lightning rod. And he knew it.

A straight-talking rancher from the small town of Burley in southern Idaho, Newcomb's slightly slurred speaking style and easy-going disposition could easily leave a person fooled about his political guile. 

But Newcomb is no fool. Sixteen years in the Legislature had taught him a thing or two about politics. So in 1999, when he set foot in the marbled corridors of the Idaho Statehouse as the new speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, he was determined to put a stop to the immediate ouster of hundreds of local elected officials, who would be unable to have their names on the ballot if term limits remained in place.

If successful, Idaho would be the first state in the nation to repeal the law through legislative action. That was obvious. The next obvious result: It would push some lawmakers into a political quagmire the likes of which they had never seen.

The fight would take place during the most tumultuous legislative sessions in recent years-during the worst budget crisis in two decades, amid an open-ended redistricting process that had veteran lawmakers unsure about where their legislative boundaries would be in 2002 and whether old friends would face each other in the upcoming election.

The fight would happen even if it complicated the upcoming elections for statewide office, including that of Newcomb's wife Representative Celia Gould, who hopes to be the state's next lieutenant governor.

It would happen even if it meant pitting the Republican-controlled Legislature head-on against Republican Governor Dirk Kempthorne, whose past refusal to favor a term limits repeal cast a cloud over Newcomb's chance of success.

But Newcomb was convinced, and there was no going back. The reasons were plainly obvious, he said. "Everything for me is what I think is in the best interest of Idaho and my district."

When voters themselves put term limits on the ballot in 1994, the measure's supporters spent $82,000 to get 59 percent of the vote. About 90 percent of the money came from out-of-state. Four years later, when the Legislature asked voters if they wanted to keep term limits in place, backers, again mostly from out-of-state, dumped more than $500,000 into the campaign, while opponents spent about $60,000. The question passed with 53 percent of the vote.

The Idaho Supreme Court in December ruled the state's 1994 voter-approved term limits law was constitutional. The results of that decision would be immediate.

Local elected leaders would be the first to go. Dozens of county commissioners, assessors, sheriffs, coroners, treasurers and county clerks across the state were barred from having their names on the ballot this election season.

Speaker Newcomb did his spadework. When lawmakers returned to Boise in January, term limits was the first issue they took up. The repeal passed quickly-and overwhelmingly-in both chambers, the house on Jan. 24 and the Senate six days later. The reaction-by the public, the press and the governor-was swift, sharp and severe. Kempthorne vetoed the bill the same day it reached his desk, and the Legislature lost no time overriding the veto.

Since the vote, legislators have been bombarded with complaints. Letters to the editor of the state's capital city newspaper, The Idaho Statesman, overwhelmingly condemn the vote. They call the lawmakers arrogant, unthinking misfits who deserve to have their punishments unleashed at the polls this May and November.

Nasty letters, e-mails and phone calls poured in to the Legislature. By early in February, lawmakers had received 3,042 phone calls. By the same time a year ago, legislators had received only 1,822 calls. 

Constituents sent in 5,624 e-mail messages by the end of February's first week. In 2001, lawmakers collected 2,968 e-mails, a slight increase over 2000's volume of 2,956 in early February.

The weekend after the historic vote on term limits, lawmakers reported verbal whippings all across the state-in stores, in church and at local meeting places.

"And these are my friends," said Mike Moyle, a second-term conservative Republican representative from Star. It was only a year ago that his constituents were singing his praises as one of the leaders of an effort to pass $100 million in tax cuts.

"Now they're saying, 'You dirty S.O.B., we're going to throw you out of there,'" Moyle said.

According to a post-term limits vote story that became somewhat of an urban legend around the Statehouse, a group of people walked out of a restaurant, refusing to eat in the same establishment as a state legislator who voted in favor of the repeal.

And Newcomb got the bulk of the blame-more than he could have predicted.

"I got really tired," said Newcomb, 62. And depressed. "I know what they say about sticks and stones, but being called names, it hurts, you know, especially when it's based on a misunderstanding."

For days, Newcomb seemed to skulk about the halls. He'd shut his eyes and sigh when reporters asked him for yet another interview on term limits, and then grudgingly agree to submit. It was not characteristic for a legislator who generally gets along with reporters.

He answered questions for CNN, NPR, The New York Times and went through the motions.

But truly, the spark was gone.

"I don't bounce back quite like I used to," Newcomb said. 

Senate Majority Leader Jim Risch of Boise said legislators are too anguished over the vote.

"I was here during the Equal Rights Amendment and right-to-work (debates)," Risch said. "This is nothing. You cast your vote and move on."

Still, Idahoans called the newspaper almost everyday asking for "hit lists"-the roll call from the original House-Senate vote to repeal term limits and the second round of votes to override the governor's veto.

Even Kempthorne hasn't been immune. The governor got accolades for his veto hours after the Legislature voted to repeal term limits. But then term limits supporters turned on him, too, saying Kempthorne basically allowed the override to happen by not twisting legislative arms and waiting longer before issuing his veto.

RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM

To understand term limits in Idaho, you have to understand the state's unusual political matrix. It is a fairly new state with a fairly small population. It joined the union in 1890. Despite a population explosion in the last 10 years, large expanses still separate its 1.2 million residents. 

There are counties as large as Rhode Island, with fewer than 1,000 residents. And then there's the sprawling Boise metropolitan area, getting daily closer to a population of half a million.

But anywhere you go in this state, from the desert country of the south to its central and eastern mountains, something about its terrain etches rugged individualism into the psyche of the people in its borders. 

It's not as pronounced as in the anecdotal case at Ruby Ridge in 1992 in which federal agents had a showdown with Randy Weaver in the Idaho back country.

Idaho independence is rooted closer to the constant Western battle the state has waged with the federal government over its land and especially its water.

As some political observers like to say, it's not so much that the electorate here is becoming more conservative all the time, but that the independents who live in Idaho just happen to vote Republican more perhaps than they used to.

Of the 70 state representatives, 61 are Republican. And of the 35 state senators, 32 are Republican. The GOP controls all but two of the state's constitutional offices. And all four members of Congress are Republican.

As with other states, Idaho found itself confronted with the term limits question in the 1990s when public dissatisfaction with the federal government gave rise to the term limits movement here. It was evident in 1992 that Idahoans would accept major reforms in their political institutions.

Seventy-five percent of Boise residents answering a survey in late 1992 said they supported term limits. But rural residents continued to be apprehensive, fearing a shortage of candidates and the lack of influence when power was concentrated in urban zones like Boise.

But if lawmakers were resistant to term limits then, they certainly weren't acting the part-at least initially. When the Legislature came to town in 1993, the term limits debate was running full-throttle. Legislators tinkered with several measures that would limit terms at all levels of government. Some passed in committee and on the floor of the House or Senate before their eventual defeat.

At the same time the Statehouse debated bills to limit terms, Governor Kempthorne was the state's freshman U.S. senator. He pledged his support for federal term limits, complaining that his vote was continually canceled by Ted Kennedy's.

And term limits supporters began collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to force the Legislature's hand on the issue.

Back at the Capitol, key lawmakers warned that the Legislature should pass some kind of term limits law. Without it, then-Senate President Pro Tem Jerry Twiggs warned, the public will take up the issue, and whatever the voters came up with would be much tougher than what Idaho legislators imposed on themselves.

Ultimately, legislators couldn't agree on a term limits approach that suited everyone. The electorate stepped in and put a term limits initiative on the ballot. 

Following on the heels of 12 other states, Idaho passed term limits laws in 1994. Idaho's term limits victory was a shallow one, brought on by support for restrictions at the federal level. When the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled the federal restriction unconstitutional in 1995, it didn't take long for support of the state's fledgling law to wane.

Then Governor Phil Batt, a Republican, originally a term limits supporter, said the new law was "probably a mistake," but declined to call for its repeal. He said lawmakers should instead let the issue play out.

And play out it did over the next six years.

Lawmakers remained flummoxed about whether to keep term limits or repeal them. An initiative passed in 1996 required incumbents to be labeled as to whether they supported efforts to limit the terms of elected officials. It passed, but was later ruled unconstitutional. In 1998, the Legislature decided the best approach would be just to ask voters outright. With congressional leaders no longer covered by the 1994 initiative, do you want term limits to remain on the rest of us? they asked.

The answer wasn't what legislators wanted to hear, but many viewed it more as a mixed answer than anything else. The answer was yes, but not resoundingly.

THE REPEAL

When the state Supreme Court ruled in December 2001 that the law could remain on the books, it became almost a certainty legislators would make term limits a priority.

The House easily had the supermajority needed to override the governor's veto and the Senate wasn't far behind.

"I'm convinced in my heart of hearts that [term limits] is not in Idaho's best interests," Newcomb told the House as it took up the measure for the first time.

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

But a few lawmakers defended the public's two votes calling for term limits.

Representative Tom Loertscher, in his eighth term, said the public was asked in 1998 if they still wanted the law, and the answer was yes.

"We're telling people we want to know what you think, but we really don't care what you think," Loertscher said.

"The people have spoken here," said Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett of Ketch- um, defending the initiative process that made term limits the law. "That process is superior. It's irresponsible and arrogant for us to ignore it."

Risch said Idahoans had been bamboozled into believing term limits were right. He called it a "plague," in the form of out-of-state money manipulating the electorate. As an example, Risch said that a former Idaho term limits activist living in Michigan had suggested that the term limits camp could pour thousands of dollars into his bid for lieutenant governor if he were to reject the repeal.

"We've got this poison and filth coming from back East, and it's time that someone who has access to a grand jury do something about it," Risch said.

The House passed the repeal 50-20.

The Senate's vote was 27-8. The majorities were enough to sustain an override of Kempthorne's certain veto.

Kempthorne reacted immediately. The bill arrived on his desk 11:54 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 31. He vetoed it at 3:25 p.m. the same day.

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

At first, term limits supporters hailed the governor for his action. Then they condemned him for not giving legislators more time to think before their override vote. 

"Let's face it, if a governor wants his veto to be upheld, he has a wide range of options available to him. He decided to take none of them," said Bill Wilson of the Washington, D.C.,-based U.S. Term Limits.

THE OVERRIDE

The Friday morning of the vote to override the governor's veto and sustain the repeal of term limits, a certain calmness, almost melancholy, filled the Statehouse. Legislators retreated to the fourth floor rotunda, where state educators prepared a big breakfast of eggs, bacon, biscuits and gravy. It was, for some, like the Last Supper.

They had already gone home to their constituents once after voting to repeal "the people's law." Now they were being asked to do it again. And they were being asked to confront the governor, a fellow Republican. Some lawmakers groused that the vote to repeal term limits was something far different from the vote to confront the Republican governor.

"We're basically saying to the public, 'We're right and he's wrong,'" said one lawmaker.

Newcomb, again, took to the floor with a simple appeal.

"Are we a body of equal standing with the executive branch or are we a lesser body?" Newcomb demanded. "Really, what it comes down to is the sanctity of the legislative branch of government."

Democratic Representative Charles Cuddy denounced East Coast manipulation of Idaho politics and pressed to put it to an end.

"How can someone from the Potomac know what's best for the city council in Orofino, Idaho?" he insisted.

GOP Senator Stan Hawkins criticized the rush to put the term limits question to a vote and said term limits' next incarnation will be worse than what legislators were facing this time around.

"I hope the state of Idaho is prepared for what's yet to come on this issue," Hawkins insisted. 

Within a matter of hours, Idaho's term limits law was gone. Only one legislator who had voted in favor of the repeal changed her mind and voted against the override.

CONSEQUENCES UNKNOWN

Not long after the votes to repeal term limits, lawmakers seemed happy to talk about the budget and other difficult issues facing them. But it didn't take long for term limits to again become the focus of Statehouse conversation. A group of business people who rose up against term limits suggested legislators pass a constitutional amendment to keep them forever off Idaho's law books. The amendment would short circuit even a successful term limits initiative expected to be on the ballot again this fall.

But House Republicans meeting privately in caucus decided they had had enough. Even the most diehard legislators who opposed restrictions on tenure said there was little stomach to propel the fight into the next phase.

"It's a very emotional issue," Newcomb said. "We need time to heal."

"The timing may not be right," suggested Representative Todd Hammond.

But term limits will remain a contested issue throughout the campaign season. That's about all candidates for the Legislature are talking about right now.

And there could be two new initiatives on the November ballot. One referendum would put the term limits repeal itself before voters. Another would give voters a chance to limit the terms of state constitutional officers to eight years and legislators in both houses to 12 years. The difference from the 1994 measure is that this time local government officials are not included. Legislators also would have to sit out a term before they could run for the other house. Don Morgan, a stockbroker from Post Falls who heads the Idaho campaign for term limits, calls this a "time out."

"If they're going to act like naughty children, we'll give them a time out," he says.

Morgan contends term limits are as popular as ever and points to the defeat of a measure in California meant to weaken that state's law. Despite a multimillion dollar campaign in support of the proposal, it failed with about 58 percent of voters casting their ballots against it. Morgan said Idahoans will reach the same conclusion this fall as they always have: that term limits are good for government.

"We tried every way we knew to compromise with these people. Now it's too late, the people have spoken."

Newcomb doubts the public feels the way Morgan does. He's proud of what legislators did, about the process the Legislature used to repeal what members considered to be a bad law in the face of public opposition.

"This is a citizen legislature in its purist form," Newcomb said.

Idaho's law, passed in 1994, applied to county, state and federal officials. Limits on members of Congress were later invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the limits, state legislators and most county officials couldn't serve more than eight years in a 15-year period. 

Proposition 45, a citizen initiative, would have allowed termed-out legislators who gathered enough signatures from registered voters in their districts, to run again for up to four more years. It failed, garnering just 42 percent of the vote.

An unusual coalition of groups came together to support Prop. 45, including a wide range of California industries, labor unions, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and the state Democratic party. Supporters of Prop. 45 raised nearly $10 million, more than $3 million of it from the Democratic State Central Committee. Opponents raised just over $1 million, all but a few thousand of which came from the Wisconsin-based group Americans for Limited Terms.

 ©2002, National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved.