Posted on 03/25/2004 5:47:11 AM PST by Theodore R.
Term limits debated The Wyoming Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday.
By Ilene Olson rep3@wyomingnews.com Published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
CHEYENNE - A courtroom crowded with past and present legislators and other onlookers set the scene Wednesday for oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging term limits in Wyoming.
"The term limits law violates everyone's constitutional rights," attorney Harriet Hageman said. "All citizens of Wyoming have a right to vote. All citizens of Wyoming have a right to run for office."
Wyoming voters approved term limits by a margin of 77 percent in the 1992 election through an initiative organized by an out-of-state lobbyist group. The resulting statute became effective Feb. 10, 1993.
In 1996 the Legislature modified the statute to allow representatives to serve for up to 12 years, or six two-year terms. That matches the limit for senators, who are permitted to serve a maximum of three four-year terms.
Hageman and attorney Tim Stubson represent Sen. Rich Cathcart, D-Carpenter; Rep. Rodney "Pete" Anderson, R- Pine Bluffs; and their constituents, Scott Zimmerman and Keith Kennedy, in their challenge of the term limits law.
Cathcart and Anderson both face term limits this year.
Hageman is the daughter of Rep. James Hageman, R-Fort Laramie, who also faces term limits this year after serving 22 years in the House.
Hageman and Stubson argued that the term limits law is unconstitutional because it was enacted by statute instead of an amendment to the Wyoming constitution. The constitution guarantees every U.S. citizen who has been a resident of Wyoming for at least 12 months and who meets age requirements the chance to run for state office, Hageman said.
Term limits are not mentioned in the constitution, she added.
But Attorney Sasha Johnston, representing the U.S. Term Limits Foundation and Jack Adsit of Jackson, said the fact that 77 percent of Wyoming's voters approved the term limits measure "has incredible significance."
Through that vote, the people expressed dissatisfaction with perpetual incumbents in the state's elected offices, she said.
Mike Hubbard, deputy Wyoming attorney general, added, "The will of the people was expressed and should be upheld by this court."
But Justice Barton Voigt said the percentage of people who voted for the initiative is politically significant but has no legal significance.
Hubbard said the term limits law is constitutional as it was done through an initiative process outlined in the constitution.
But Hageman said that section of the constitution specifies that, among other things, initiatives shall not to be used enact legislation that is prohibited by the constitution or by the Legislature.
"The Legislature could not have enacted this term limits statute," she said.
Golden asked if Hubbard's interpretation of the initiative process could be used to abolish the court or to lead a revolution every 20 years or so.
"Is that something the people could do?" he asked.
Hubbard said he thought a procedure or mechanism would be necessary to do that.
Justice Marilyn Kite said, "If the Legislature wouldn't have that power, then neither would the people through an initiative. Is that true?"
Hubbard also argued that the negative or positive phraseology used in constitutional wording indicates the true intent of the constitution's framers.
But Golden asked, "Do you think the people who ratified the constitution understood that negative language means one thing and positive language means another?"
Golden said he has read briefs on the subject.
"My eyes cross," he said. "I can't imagine that people understood that."
Hubbard's final argument was that the statute of limitations has passed for a challenge of the term limits law.
"It is very clear that the appellants could have brought this case several years ago," he said.
But Voigt said, "It seems to me that these issues were decided in (Laramie County) District Court."
Hubbard said it was discussed briefly before "the judge denied it out of hand." More time is needed to develop the case fully and give residents a chance to respond to the issue, he added.
On the other hand, Hageman thanked the court for expediting the case to avoid interruption of this year's election cycle.
May 28 is the deadline to file for election to state offices.
Hageman and Johnston both said arguments in the case went well.
"We made our point, and the Supreme Court indicated this was an important case," Hageman said.
Johnston said, "I think this case has been well argued and as developed as it possibly could have been in this short of time. I'm confident the court will consider all issues raised."
Representatives of the U.S. Term Limits Foundation in Washington, D.C., were unavailable due to the late hour and the East Coast time difference. Adsit also could not be reached.
Michael Walden-Newman, executive director of the Wyoming Taxpayers Association and who was involved in the initial brainstorming session that led to the lawsuit, attended Wednesday's court hearing. He said he doesn't think legislators, particularly part-time legislators like Wyoming's, should be term-limited.
"For the five elected officials, I'm not so sure term limits are not a good idea with them working full time," he added.
Cathcart said he found the Supreme Court's proceedings impressive.
"The questions the justices asked led the attorneys in getting into the heart of the issue," he said.
He added that he thinks he and the other appellants stand a good chance of winning the case.
"I thought the arguments from our attorneys were more compelling and more persuasive," he said.
The state senator said he never has supported term limits, but did vote in 1996 to extend the limit for representatives to match that for senators.
"The very arguments we heard today are the basic reasons," he said. "We are a citizens' Legislature. The total time served after 10 years is 300 days. I don't think we have a huge anchor of incumbents coming back. In the last election, seven incumbents were defeated."
A study shows that the average number of time served by legislators since Wyoming was a territory is 6.7 years, Cathcart said.
"If the average legislator only served 6.7 years, I fail to see the need for term limits when we desperately need people who are willing to serve in leadership," he added. "There is a need for experience and institutional memory."
Anderson said he also opposed term limits from the start but voted to extend the limit in the House.
"I was opposed to (term limits) mainly because I saw it as a tool to make Western states less effective in Congress," he added. "Eastern states were not passing term limits, but they expected Western states to."
Anderson and Cathcart both said they took part in the lawsuit because they believe any law limiting term limits should be enacted through a constitutional amendment.
"I still think term limits are determined at the ballot box," Anderson added.
The normal constitutional amendment precess begins in the legislature. Usually requires a 75% for vote in both houses to pass out.
Hageman is arguing that the constitution doesnot mention term limits and unless the legislature completes its portion of the amendment process and submits the proposed amendment to the people for a vote, the people have no method of disciplining the legislature EXCEPT by voting in enough pro-term limit legislators to ensure they have a 3/4 majority so that the amendment can get out of the legislature.
Asking legislators to vote to term limit themselves through a constitutional amendment has to be the classic example of the fox guarding the hen house.
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.