Yesterday, the Senate State and Local Government committee heard testimony on SCR 4008 which seeks to unconstitutionally put the term-limits voters passed in 2022 back on the ballot.
SCR 4008 is nearly identical to HCR 3019 in the 2023 session:
Article XV of the state’s constitution is the article that declares the term limits for state legislators. It was created by Measure 1 in 2022 when voters approved it with 63% of the vote.
I was asked to be one of the sponsors in 2022, but I declined because I advocated for the term limit to be 16 years total in any configuration rather than 8 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate: a proposal that the 2021 legislature rejected by a vote of 12 Yeas to 78 Nays.
When it comes to term limits, the legislature had a change to offer the public a better choice. Now, if you asked most legislators, they wish this was what they have to live with.
Despite the fact I declined to be a sponsor of the 2022 initiated constitutional measure, the committee behind the measure did take one of my suggestions: include a provision to lockout the legislature from being able to place amendments to term limits on the ballot themselves, and required that any changes to term limits come from the citizens via petition.
That provision Article XV Section 4:
The Need To Protect The Power Of The People, By Locking Out The Legislature
Back in 2019, I proposed an initiated constitutional measure to "lock out” the legislature from proposing changes to Article III (Powers Reserved to the People).
We put together the committee and started collecting signatures in 2019, but due to my literally breaking my leg and then COVID-19 hitting, the effort had to be abandoned.
In that measure, which will someday come back, I proposed that the legislature not be allow to place constitutional measures on the ballot to amend Article III of the constitution, and that any change would required an effort together signatures on a petition.
Essentially the principle is: “if you want to changed the initiated measure process, you must use the initiated measure process - no legislative short cuts.”
This was the basis of what ended up in Article XV Section 4 when the voters approved term limits.
Testing The Constitutionality
If you watch the video of the committee hearing above, you will hear discussion of court challenges. This is because if this constitutional provision prohibits the legislature from even proposing a ballot measure to change Article 15 Section 1’s provision. (It’s unclear whether proposing means introducing a resolution, like SCR 4008, or if proposing happens after the legislature has voted to place the measure on the ballot.)
In my testimony, I stated that I welcomed a court challenge on this provision in Article XV because it would determine whether pursuing a “lockout” provision on Article III would be worth the effort.
SCR 4008 is another case where the legislature is hypocritical.
They say on bills like HCR 3003 that the constitution is sacred and it should be harder to amend. But time and time again, they act like the provisions already in the constitution do not apply to them!
Share this post