Utah Ballot Measure #
Term Limits Pledge Act For Candidates, 2004
________________________________________
BALLOT LANGUAGE
This bill would require the lieutenant governor to allow candidates for the United States Congress or Utah Legislature to make a term limits pledge. A candidate would pledge to limit service to four terms in the U.S. House and two in the Senate or to eight out of 16 years in the Utah Legislature. The bill would require printing “signed term limits pledge” next to the pledging candidate’s name on the ballot and other state election material. It would similarly require printing “broke term limits pledge” if a pledging candidate seeks a term exceeding the term limits in the pledge.

SHOULD THIS INITIATIVE BECOME LAW?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
________________________________________
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY SUMMARY
This measure would allow, but not require, candidates for the U.S. Congress and the state legislature to submit a term limits pledge. Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives could pledge not to serve in that body for more than 4 terms after the measure becomes law. Candidates for the U.S. Senate could pledge not to serve in that body for more than 2 terms after the measure becomes law. Candidates for the state legislature could pledge not to serve in the state legislature for more than 8 years in any 16 year period after the measure becomes law.

The lieutenant governor would print certain information next to a pledged candidate’s name on every election ballot and in all state sponsored voter education material in which the candidate’s name appears as a candidate for the office to which the pledge referred. If a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives submitted a pledge, the phrase “Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more than 4 terms” would appear. If a candidate for the U.S. Senate submitted a pledge, the phrase “Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more than 2 terms” would appear. If a candidate for the state legislature submitted a pledge, the phrase “Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more than 8 years” would appear. However, if a candidate submitted a term limits pledge and any time thereafter qualifies as a candidate for a term that would exceed the number of terms or years set forth in the pledge, the phrase “Broke TERM LIMITS pledge” would appear. To be timely, a pledge must be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor at a time up until 15 days prior to the Lieutenant Governor’s certification of the ballot. Service in office for more than one-half of a term would be deemed service for a term.

The measure would be severable. If any portion is held invalid, the remaining portion to the fullest extent possible would be given the fullest force and application. The state-recognized proponents and sponsors of the measure would be given standing to defend it. Findings, declarations, purpose, and intent language is included in the measure.
________________________________________
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW
Be it enacted by the people of the State of Utah:

SECTION 1. TITLE.
This act shall be known as and may be cited as “The Term Limits Pledge Act of 2004”.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.
The people of the State of Utah find and declare as follows: (a) Polls of the People of Utah indicated that a clear majority favor Federal and State legislators serving only a limited number of terms.
(b) The United States Congress and the Utah Legislature have a clear conflict of interest in proposing term limits on themselves and have consistently refused to limit their own terms.
(c) The voters of Utah want to elect Federal and State legislators that pledge to limit their own terms.
(d) The voters of Utah want to know which candidates for the United States Congress and the Utah Legislature support term limits and the concept of a citizen legislature.

SECTION 3. PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The purpose and intent in enacting this legislation is to require the Lieutenant Governor to permit but not require any candidate for the United States Congress and the Utah State Legislature to submit to the Lieutenant Governor an executed copy of the applicable Term Limits Pledge set forth in Section 4 of this Act up until 15 days prior to the Lieutenant Governor’s certification of the ballot in order for the ballot information set forth in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 5 of this Act to be included on that ballot.

SECTION 4. TERM LIMITS PLEDGE.
(a) The Lieutenant Governor shall permit but not require any candidate for the United States Congress and the Utah Legislature to submit to the Lieutenant Governor an executed copy of the Term Limits Pledge set forth in subsection (b) of this section up until 15 days prior to the Lieutenant Governor’s certification of the ballot in order for the ballot information set forth in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 5 of this Act to be included on that ballot.
(b) The Term Limits Pledge will be as set forth herein and will incorporate the applicable language in [ ] for the office the candidate seeks:

Term Limits Pledge for Candidates for the United States Congress:

I voluntarily pledge not to serve in the United States [House of Representatives more than 4 terms] [Senate more than 2 terms] after the effective date of this provision and authorize the Lieutenant Governor to notify the voters of this action by placing the applicable ballot information, “Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more than [4 terms] [2 terms]” or “Broke TERM LIMITS pledge” next to my name on every election ballot and in all state sponsored voter education material in which my name appears as a candidate for the office for which the pledge refers.
_____________________________ _________
Signature Date

Term Limits Pledge for Candidates for the Utah Legislature:

I voluntarily pledge not to serve in the Utah Legislature for more than 8 years in any 16 year period after the effective date of this provision and authorize the Lieutenant Governor to notify the voters of this action by placing the applicable ballot information, “Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more than 8 years” or “Broke TERM LIMITS pledge” next to my name on every election ballot and in all state sponsored voter education material in which my name appears as a candidate for the office for which the pledge refers.
_____________________________ _________
Signature Date

SECTION 5. BALLOT INFORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) The Lieutenant Governor shall place on every election ballot and in all state sponsored voter education material the applicable ballot information, “Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more than [4 terms] [2 terms]” next to the name of any candidate for the office of United States Representative and United States Senator who has ever executed the Term Limits Pledge except when subsection (c) of this section applies.
(b) The Lieutenant Governor shall place on every election ballot and in all state sponsored voter education material the ballot information, “Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more than 8 years” next to the name of any candidate for the Utah Legislature who has ever executed the Term Limits Pledge except when subsection (c) of this section applies.
(c) The Lieutenant Governor shall place on every election ballot and in all state sponsored voter education material the ballot information, “Broke TERM LIMITS pledge” next to the name of any candidate who at any time executes the applicable Term Limits Pledge and thereafter qualifies as a candidate for a term that would exceed the number of terms or years set forth in the applicable Term Limits Pledge.
(d) For the purpose of this section, service in office for more than one-half of a term shall be deemed service for a term.
(e) The state-recognized proponent(s) and sponsor(s) of this initiative shall have the standing to defend it.
(f) The Lieutenant Governor shall implement this section by rule as long as that rule does not alter the intent of this section.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY.
If any portion of this section is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion to the fullest extent possible shall be severed from the void portion and given the fullest force and application.
________________________________________
________________________________________

Legal Issues

The 5-4 Supreme Court decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton on May 22, 1995 rendered unenforceable state laws limiting congressional terms. The decision, however, does not affect term limits at the state or local levels. The United States Constitution does not prescribe how a local body is to be governed.

At the municipal level also, term limits have been the subject of lawsuit. Even so, city limitations have withstood judicial scrutiny in almost every challenge. The variety of legal bases for challenges is as imaginative as the challengers are predictable. A summary of challenges follows.

The New York Supreme Court affirmed the right of citizens to limit their elected officials’ terms in office. The 1993 opinion in Roth v. Cuevas had five major holdings. First, the New York City law is not beyond the local legislative authority granted in the New York Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law. Second, limits on the number of consecutive terms allowed is not an arbitrary exclusion from office Third, the law does not infringe on the right to seek office under the Equal Protection Clause of the New York Constitution. Fourth, term limit petitions circulated do not seek to exercise legislative authority inconsistent with the state restrictions. And fifth, the local term limits proposition does not disenfranchise the voters. In an informal opinion related to a term limits proposal in White Plains, New York, dated May 9, 1995, New York Solicitor General Victoria Graffeo cited the opinion in Roth v. Cuevas. She said, “The Court concluded that the term limit legislation is not inconsistent with the Constitution or any state law… . Further, the Court found that the State’s silence on this issue did not establish a conflict.”

Opponents of a term limits law passed in San Antonio, Texas, initially sought reprieve on the basis of harm to minority voters in terms of representation, citing the Voting Rights Act. The claim fell flat, however, much like a Kansas City attempt on the same grounds, owing to overwhelming minority support for the measure. Since the limit of two, two-year terms was passed in 1991, council members have exhausted nearly every effort imaginable to foil the popular will of San Antonio voters. Local editorials derided the council: “Efforts to create a grassroots movement to change the city’s term-limit rule may be under way in the near future, with some people (at least six) hoping for action in time to save the six [c]ity [c]ouncil members now in their final terms.” The most recent tactic in San Antonio is a challenge to the law’s lifetime ban. Some politicians feared a “hostile reaction” by the voters and were reluctant to be named in a lawsuit. They then hoped to file suit on behalf of the citizens, “on the theory that they are deprived of the right to representation by the candidate of their choice.”

In March 1995, Helen Dutmer, a 14-year former council member and county commissioner, confronted the lifetime ban of four years service by attempting to file for office in San Antonio. She was declared ineligible to be on the ballot. Her attorney, Lawrence J. Souza, plans to challenge the ban, creating legal precedent in Texas to challenge the local term limit laws. Souza believes the state election code sets qualifications for office that pre-empt any local additions, even in cities with a home-rule classification. The San Antonio case is months from resolution, but the early prognosis looks good.

In Cincinnati, Ohio, voter Kimberly Miyazawa challenged the 1991 charter amendment on the basis that term limits “might affect some future vote and that violated her rights.” Her case was dismissed by United States District Judge Carl Rubin, who found that her claim was too hypothetical and that she suffered no injury. Two subsequent appeals have upheld the lower court ruling.

After voters in Albuquerque, New Mexico, limited city councilors to two terms of office by 71.5 percent of the vote, three councilors and a former councilor filed suit. They asked that the measure be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that the New Mexico qualifications for office are exclusive and such a measure would have to be passed by statewide constitutional amendment, despite the fact that the city’s home rule status is also provided for in the New Mexico Constitution. New Mexico state district judge Robert Scott upheld the council term limits in February 1995, stating that such laws are a “valid exercise of powers under home rule.” The attorney for the politicians who filed suit immediately announced his intention to appeal the case. The judges in the New Mexico Court of Appeals read the New Mexico Constitution differently and said that the qualifications stipulated are exclusive. The entire process is being expedited because sitting council member Vince Griego’s term is expiring and he wants his name placed on the November election ballot. The case is currently before the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Duncan Scott and Henry Narvaez are the attorneys representing the city’s term limit law. Narvaez states that the case was decided correctly at the district court level and is relevant for all cities with local governing autonomy. “I feel it is vitally important to defend home-rule as a constitutional tool to better enable citizens to govern at the local level. Term limits is an important test of home-rule authority and we are hopeful we can successfully defend the decision from the lower court.”

Attorney Duncan Scott said the voters have spoken and the decision at the appellate level all but obliterates home-rule in New Mexico. “We have a handful of incumbents trying to thwart the will of 72 percent of the voters in Albuquerque… . These people really believe they own the office and will only be dragged from office with their fingernails clutching their desks.”

Local limits have been challenged several times in California. The basic finding of the courts is that general-law cities cannot impose term limits without approval of the California legislature, but that cities with home-rule status can impose term limits because such exercises of local legislative autonomy are a “municipal affair.” A 1995 law passed by the state legislature in California opens the floodgates to numerous new city term limit laws. Since Senate Bill No. 2, chapter 432 was filed with the Secretary of State on August 11, 1995, virtually any governing body of any size is expressly authorized to be term limited.

In Mounds View, Minnesota, within a week of a voters’ amendment changing their local charter to prohibit anyone from serving more than eight years as mayor, council member, or any combination of two offices, the city council made an unprecedented decision: it instructed the city clerk not to file the charter amendment. Attorney Chris Dietzen, also representing the Term Limits Coalition in the Minneapolis law suit, testified before the Charter Commission hearing in Mounds View, stating that the city council “is obligated to officially file the term limits amendment in a timely manner” and that the council’s action is not permitted by state law.

Some cities have precluded term limits by not allowing a vote at all. In Minneapolis, politicians thwarted a city term limits proposal before citizens were allowed to vote on the issue, calling term limits “manifestly unconstitutional.” The city clerk refused to put term limits on the ballot, despite nearly 20,000 petition signatures from residents demanding that they be allowed to vote on it. The Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition brought the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ruled in a 4-3 decision on August 4, 1995, that the terms “qualified” and “eligible” for office were very different and thus local limits were not allowed according to the Minnesota Constitution. A dissenting opinion pointed out that the United States Supreme Court used the terms interchangeably and thus, the narrow majority opinion was flawed. The case will be heard in federal district court in the fall of 1995.

The city clerk in Middletown, New York, rejected a referendum put forth by the voters in September 1994 because it was not clearly written. The Middletown Taxpayers Association, the group that gathered enough petitions to put the question to vote, challenged the rejection. The court clarified the proposal and ruled that it must go to the ballot. In November 1994, Middletown voters passed term limits of two, two-year terms on elected officials.

Wisconsin is perhaps the most befuddling example of what politicians will do legally, or illegally, to avoid term limits in their cites. The Waukesha, Wisconsin, city clerk scattered hundreds of forms all over the city and then demanded that they all be re-found and re-submitted, giving Ron Raduechel of the Waukesha Taxpayers League ten days to track down 266 sheets of paper containing over 2,500 valid signatures. The reason the clerk cited for this action was an insufficiency in the petitions. But according to Wisconsin law, “If an insufficiency in the petitions is found, the city clerk must notify the individual filing the petition on behalf of the electors.” Nick Youngers, Wisconsin Term Limits Field Director, stated that it was obvious that “city officials are deliberately and illegally trying to crush the citizen movement to impose term limits on elected representatives.”

Several Wisconsin cities refused to put term limits on the ballot in the fall of 1994. William Pangman, attorney for Wisconsin Term Limits filed a class action lawsuit in order to make 17 cities and villages honor the petition campaigns and order binding referendum votes on term limits. Under Wisconsin’s “direct legislation” statute, councils presented with valid petitions must either pass the matter or put it up to a binding referendum. According to Wisconsin case law, there are a few instances when city council members may elect to do neither. The city governments in the Wisconsin law suit decided that the issue of term limits is “administrative in character, rather than legislative,” and that therefore they don’t have to do anything with the valid petitions.