Posted on 05/05/2004 7:33:00 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Term limits ruled unconstitutional Wyoming Supreme Court says it violates legislators' rights to run for office
By Ilene Olson rep3@wyomingnews.com Published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
CHEYENNE - Twelve Wyoming legislators who faced term limits now are free to run for re-election following the overturning of a state law Tuesday.
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled the law is unconstitutional because it violates legislators' rights to run for office and because it was enacted by an initiative without an amendment to the state constitution.
Term limits opponents hailed the decision as an affirmation of residents' rights; people who want such limits say striking down the law erodes public trust in government.
Jack Adsit of Sheridan, who signed on as an intervenor in the case in February as a supporter of the law, noted that 77 percent of the people who voted on the issue in 1992 were in favor of it.
"I guess (the decision) just proves that the people's vote really does not stand in this state," Adsit said.
The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 7 by Sen. Rich Cathcart, D-Carpenter, and Rep. Rodney "Pete" Anderson, R-Pine Bluffs, and constituents Scott Zimmerman and Keith Kennedy.
Having served 12 years each, both Cathcart and Anderson were prohibited from running for re-election by the law. While they now are free to run again, both say they have not decided whether to do so.
The court's decision, written by Justice Barton Voigt, says the questions raised by the plaintiffs were constitutional ones.
"(T)his case is not about whether term limits are a good idea," he wrote. "The question is simply whether it was the framers' intent to allow the Legislature to add qualifications to those established in the constitution. . We have concluded there was no such intent."
The decision upheld arguments by the plaintiffs that the constitution prohibits using an initiative to enact something that the constitution would not allow the Legislature to do.
While attorneys representing Adsit and the U.S. Term Limits Foundation argued that the fact that the voters had favored term limits was "the most important thing," the justices disagreed.
"The fact that 77 percent of the voters favored a particular measure does not make that measure constitutional," Voigt wrote. "Either we live under a constitutional government or we do not."
Attorney Harriet Hageman, who represented the plaintiffs, said rights provided under constitutions are given to individuals, not to groups.
"Nobody else has the right to take that away by majority vote," she said.
But Adsit said, "We should have the right to (impose limits), and the only way to do that is by initiative. The initiative gave us a right to reform our government. That's the only way to put it on the ballot. To prove that point, ask the legislators to pass term limits on themselves."
Attorneys representing Secretary of State Joe Meyer in his defense of the statute argued that the framers of the constitution outlined basic requirements for running for election to the Legislature but didn't prohibit additional conditions.
The court responded that those requirements are exclusive and may not be altered without a constitutional amendment.
"The answer to that question lies in (the article that says) 'the laws of this state affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex or any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than individual incompetency, or unless unworthiness (is) duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction,'" Voigt wrote. "Incumbency is simply not 'individual incompetency or unworthiness.'"
Voigt said the state's constitution initially imposed a four-year term limit on the secretary of state.
"Clearly the framers of the state constitution knew and used the necessary language to establish term limits," Voigt wrote. "That they did not use that language (when) addressing the qualifications and terms for legislators is telling."
Attorneys for the plaintiffs noted during oral arguments tat the four-year term limit for the secretary of state was repealed later by a constitutional amendment. That is the method they say - and the court agrees - is needed to impose term limits on legislators.
While the court's decision makes it clear the current term limits law is unconstitutional for legislators, debate on the issue is far from over.
Paul Jacobs, spokesman for the U.S. Term Limits Foundation, said, "It was a political decision, not a legitimate judicial decision. It gives a reason to be disappointed and cynical. It gives reason to believe the government doesn't care what (people) think."
Several Cheyenne residents sounded off on the issue Tuesday.
Allen Scarborough, a newcomer to Wyoming, said he has mixed feelings about term limits.
"People in (office) for a long time have a certain amount of experience, but if they're there too long, a little lethargy sets in," he said.
Brandylyn Brown said she thinks legislators should be term-limited.
"There should be change and progression," she said. "If you stay with the same person for so long, nothing will get changed."
But Michael Sena said, "If (legislators) keep getting voted in, I don't see a problem. They must be doing a good job."
Krista Decklever said, "We should have a term limit. We would get more people in there and more ideas. Different changes can be made so it's not the same thing over and over."
Stephanie Harnish said, "If you have a good guy in there and support his work, it's all good. If the people want them in, they can re-vote them in."
Plaintiff Kennedy of Burns said he was pleased with the decision. He said he joined the lawsuit challenging the term limits law after working as a lobbyist in the Legislature.
"I saw that there was a mix of new legislators and legislators who were familiar with the system," he said. "I saw how much the new legislators relied on those who had been there for some time. It's important that we retain that memory."
Added Anderson, "We were pretty tickled with the decision."
While some of his constituents may have been alienated by his lawsuit, many have expressed support for his decision, he said.
"My feeling is most people don't care much one way or the other about term limits," he said. "There seems to be a feeling of apathy about term limits."
Cathcart said the term limits initiative passed because it was well financed by out-of-state money.
"There was zero money spent against the initiative," he said. "I guess the power of advertising prevailed there.
"It's amazing the number of people I talk to today who voted for term limits who say now that was really dumb. There's quite a number of people who have reconsidered that."
Meyer, who was charged with defending the law and who runs the state's election system, later spoke against term limits.
"(But) my greatest concern was I needed an answer," he said. "I'm pleased that the court rendered a quick decision. That takes that procedural matter off my back."
Filing for this year's legislative elections begins next week.
Meyer noted the court declined to rule on a similar statute that puts eight-year term limits on the state's five elected officials - the governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer and state superintendent of public instruction.
Attorney General Pat Crank said he has no personal sentiments on the issue.
"It was overwhelmingly passed in 1992," he said. ""We'll just have to wait and see what happens."
Jacobs said, "Now it goes back to the Legislature. Now we'll see whether the Legislature will represent the 23 percent of the people who voted against term limits or the 77 percent who voted for them.
"If they don't pass a constitutional amendment, they're not doing what people want. What they're saying is, 'We have government of, by and for politicians.'"
Rep. Becket Hinckley, R-Cheyenne, said he has asked the Legislative Service Office to draft a bill that would put a constitutional amendment on a future ballot.
To become effective, an amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, followed by a two-thirds majority vote by the people.
"The people of Wyoming deserve a chance to at least voice their opinion on the subject that passed by a vote of 77 percent," Hinckley said. "Let the debate begin in earnest."
But Adsit said several past attempts to get a bill through the Legislature to establish term limits by constitutional amendment have been unsuccessful.
"They never went any place," he said. "They all got killed in committee.
"Whenever a committee chairman has the power to put a bill on the bottom of the pile so it doesn't get acted on, is that abusing power? I would say (it is), and that's a poor representation of the citizen's government."
If judges are elected in Wyoming, the judges voting for this madness should be targeted and pitched out on their arrogant butts. If not, then the solution lies in dumping any gubernatorial candidates who support this decision, since Governors appoint new judges.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Honesty Problems with Kerry and Gorelick: Pin the Truth on the Democrat."
If 77 percent favor term limits, they should have no problem amending the state constitution. My initial impression, absent any knowledge of the constitution in question, is that the court ruled correctly - I wish the federal Supreme Court would demand such adherence to the proper process for changing how the fedgov works.
Well, it really depends upon what the constitution for Wyoming says about the proper process for implementing such a change. From the article:
"(T)his case is not about whether term limits are a good idea," he wrote. "The question is simply whether it was the framers' intent to allow the Legislature to add qualifications to those established in the constitution. . We have concluded there was no such intent."
The decision upheld arguments by the plaintiffs that the constitution prohibits using an initiative to enact something that the constitution would not allow the Legislature to do.
I'd have to read up on the Wyoming Consitution, but I would also caution that we should not condemn a court shooting down laws that fundamentally alter a constitution while bypassing the normal amendment process.
I stand by my comments about the Wyoming Supreme Court. I have made similar remarks about the US Supreme Court. And I have even harsher comments in the pipeline. Watch this space.
John / Billybob
I agree. However, we also rant and rave about how Congress passes laws that have no true Constitutional basis, and the Supreme Court refuses in most to apply the 10th Amendment to overturn those laws. And here we have a court doing the opposite at the state level - saying that, for the state constitution to be effectively amendmended, the amendment process must be followed, instead of taking the shortcut of an initiative. Once again, I'd have to study up on the Wyoming Constitution to see if there is any underlying legal basis for this decision (which I have no plans on doing), but on the surface it agrees with a limited government, due process approach that many freepers wish that SCOTUS and the fedgov would follow.
Declaration of rights
Sec. 36. Rights not enumerated reserved to people. The enumeration in this constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.
Sec. 2. Members’ terms and qualifications.
Senators shall be elected for the term of four (4) years and representatives for the term of two (2) years. The senators elected at the first election shall be divided by lot into two classes as nearly equal as may be. The seats of senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the first two years, and of the second class at the expiration of four years. No person shall be a senator who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, or a representative who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, and who is not a citizen of the United States and of this state and who has not, for at least twelve months next preceding his election resided within the county or district in which he was elected.
Sec. 27. Special and local laws prohibited.
The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: For granting divorces; laying out, opening, altering or working roads or highways; vacating roads, town plats, streets, alleys or public grounds; locating or changing county seats; regulating county or township affairs; incorporation of cities, towns or villages; or changing or amending the charters of any cities, towns or villages; regulating the practice in courts of justice; regulating the jurisdiction and duties of justices of the peace, police magistrates or constables; changing the rules of evidence in any trial or inquiry; providing for changes of venue in civil or criminal cases; declaring any person of age; for limitation of civil actions; giving effect to any informal or invalid deeds; summoning or impaneling grand or petit juries; providing for the management of common schools; regulating the rate of interest on money; the opening or conducting of any election or designating the place of voting; the sale or mortgage of real estate belonging to minors or others under disability; chartering or licensing ferries or bridges or toll roads; chartering banks, insurance companies and loan and trust companies; remitting fines, penalties or forfeitures; creating[,] increasing, or decreasing fees, percentages or allowances of public officers; changing the law of descent; granting to any corporation, association or individual, the right to lay down railroad tracks, or any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever, or amending existing charter for such purpose; for punishment of crimes; changing the names of persons or places; for the assessment or collection of taxes; affecting estates of deceased persons, minors or others under legal disabilities; extending the time for the collection of taxes; refunding money paid into the state treasury, relinquishing or extinguishing, in whole or part, the indebtedness, liabilities or obligation of any corporation or person to this state or to any municipal corporation therein; exempting property from taxation; restoring to citizenship persons convicted of infamous crimes; authorizing the creation, extension or impairing of liens; creating offices or prescribing the powers or duties of officers in counties, cities, townships or school districts; or authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children. In all other cases where a general law can be made applicable no special law shall be enacted.
Sec. 52. Initiative and referendum.
(g) The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, enact local or special legislation, or enact that prohibited by the constitution for enactment by the legislature. [emphasis mine] The referendum shall not be applied to dedications of revenue, to appropriations, to local or special legislation, or to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.
As opposed to the common doo-doo process approach, viz. the cancer of the commerce clause that even most conservatives give unqualified support for when it comes to things like fighting that evil pot.
Yep. Republican government is supposed to act as a brake on mob impulses, but let the amendment process get in the way of someone's pet agenda, left OR right, and all of a sudden it's a bad thing.
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.