Posted on 10/19/2014 10:01:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Many politicians prove themselves nothing better than powerful arguments for term limits. But Arkansas State Senator Jon Woods rivals the very best of them.
Sen. Woods (R-Springdale) and State Rep. Warwick Sabin (D-Little Rock) co-authored a 22-page, 7,000-plus-word constitutional amendment that voters will find on this Novembers state ballot. If passed, the amendment, simply known to voters as Issue 3, will constitute roughly one-eighth of the entire Arkansas Constitution even including all 85 previous amendments to that document.
Issue 3 is so long, in fact, that it cost Arkansas taxpayers more than $1 million to print it in newspapers throughout the state, as required by law.
These two loquacious legislators claim that Issue 3 is about ethics and transparency. Are they right?
You decide.
Woods and Sabin did indeed throw together various ethics provisions banning certain gifts to legislators and blocking legislators from becoming lobbyists for two years after leaving office, for instance. The monstrously long measure also outlaws corporate contributions, which of course, though popular on the left, is unconstitutional on its face.
These provisions were all lifted (with some watering-down) from a 2012 citizens initiative written by a group of serious and well-meaning liberal activists. Their petition drive to place the statutory ethics initiative on the ballot started late and failed to gather enough signatures from voters. No surprise there most initiatives fail to make the ballot in the first attempt.
Notice, though, that their straightforward ethics initiative did not seek to amend the state constitution. It was a simple statute, because none of their reforms required altering the states foundational document.
Woods and Sabin, on the other hand, apparently had other matters in mind. They stuck into the ethics and transparency measure a gutting of voter-enacted legislative term limits. Weakening their own term limits does indeed require amending the constitution.
It is also exceedingly unpopular. Polls show term limits to be wildly well-liked by state voters (and every group sans politicians). Arkansans first enacted term limits in 1992 with a 60 percent Yes vote the largest affirmative vote in state history. Twelve years later, in 2004, legislators tried to loosen those limits and voters told them No with a 70 percent vote.
What are scheming politicians to do?
Well, Woods and Sabin wrote a ballot title. They tell the voters that Issue 3 is get this establishing term limits. Isnt that positive? No need bothering to inform people that they would be voting to double how long legislators can stay in the Senate and more than double the House limit to a whopping 16 years!
This past week, the folks opposing Issue 3, Arkansas Term Limits, announced TV ads alerting the public to the scam. The groups co-chair, Tim Jacob (in full disclosure: my brother), charged that legislators have pursued a campaign of silence . . . letting the deceptive ballot title do their work, so that when Arkansas voters go to the polls there will be no mention of the doubling of term limits.
We believe voters have a right to know whats in it, Jacob explained.
The unrepentant Sen. Woods flew into a rage over the ads, decrying their negative tone: I think people are tired of the negative campaigning and all the negative ads.
The senator also audaciously called the television spots extremely misleading for pointing out that his Issue 3 is extremely deceptive. Meanwhile, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that, after asking Sen. Woods point-blank if the ballot language he authored wasnt actually quite misleading, Woods said he doesnt know.
There is one other little tidbit Sen. Woods and Rep. Sabin slipped into Issue 3, which has gotten far less attention than the knife-attack on term limits. The measure would set up an Independent Citizens Commission. The purpose of this commission is to set the salaries for elected officials: legislators, the governor, other statewide officers and judges.
Supporters of the salary-setting commission argue that it prevents legislators from raising their own salaries. That sounds good, eh?
But a cynic might dare suspect the commission to be a sham. And our politicians always make cynics appear wise, if not actually clairvoyant.
First, this independent body would be appointed, not elected. By whom? A majority of the seven-crony commission would be chosen by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Two more would be hand-picked by the governor and one appointed by the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Second, a majority of this commission would have no check whatsoever on their power, enjoying the constitutional authority to hike salaries for legislators and other state officials as high as . . . well, as high as they want to go. Wait a second, would a million-dollar pay boost to legislators really be constitutional and beyond any recourse from the citizenry? The answer is: Yes. And yes. But after the first pay hike of say, $100,000 or $1 million or whatever, the pay could only be increased by 15 percent per year.
To politicians, thats known as limited government.
An increasingly defensive Woods told reporters now waking up to the details of Issue 3 that its defeat would make a lot of lawmakers extremely happy, since they supposedly dont like the tame ethics provisions. Funny, his term-limits-wrecking, pay-hiking measure passed the Senate, 23-4, and the House, 71-12.
Asked about a resolution opposing Issue 3, passed nearly unanimously by the 350-plus delegates at the Arkansas GOPs official state convention, Sen. Woods actually stated, You just have a couple of nuts that got together on a Saturday that were out of touch with Arkansans and passed a silly resolution that in no way reflects the point of view of all Republicans in Arkansas.
Perhaps Democratic Party politicians are smarter. I havent shared any statements from the Democratic co-author of Issue 3, because Rep. Warwick Sabin is nowhere to be found in news coverage . . . likely hiding under his bed.
And this, Sen. Woods recently said, is bipartisanship at its best. The Deceivers
The proposed amendment
http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/Documents/Issue%20No%203%20with%20text.pdf
Here in Colorado a few years back a judge threw out a 3 sentence (IIRC) proposed amendment because it contained too many provisions.
The ultimate term limiter is an informed and moral electorate. No law can substitute or compensate for ignorant and immoral voters. When the term limit of one skunk expires, the voters will merely replace him with another skunk. In the end, we simply produce a lot more retired skunks.
Source: Pulaski County, Arkansas (Little Rock) Election Commission facebook page.
I’m surprised this is allowed on the ballot.
I haven’t followed the details of those issues and amendments which are disallowed from the ballot.
It appears to me, however, that issues which call for limits on the size of government have a much higher standard to meet than those allowing for larger government.
Cigarettes, ice cream, figurines...
of the Virgin Mary...
I remember one initiative petition that a judge allowed those opposed to it to rewrite the language as it appeared on the ballot.
So, by voting for it, you were actually voting against it.
The issue was to ban state schools from using Ralph Nader’s negative checkoff scam to fund PIRG.
I like the all caps, makes it illegible.... people will vote “no” just because they can’t read it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.