Push for Term Limits May Rob Washington State of Its Clout

It started out here just as in California and elsewhere--a prairie-fire rebellion against political incumbency. But the Nov. 5 Washington state ballot initiative to impose term limits for elective offices has melted through the standard campaign boilerplate into the hot center of state politics: the clout of House Speaker Thomas S. Foley, Democrat of Spokane.

Suddenly, a familiar campaign theme--the revolt of the voter--has collided headlong with the self-consciousness of a state that has long enjoyed the tangible benefits of old-fashioned seniority.

“That is exactly what this campaign is about--an assault on the seniority system. We want our members of Congress to be effective from the first day they are elected, not to have to wait 10 or 15 years,” said Sherry Bockwinkle, who is running the campaign group Limit, which is behind the voter initiative.

Fearful opponents including--who else?--the state’s political Establishment, office-holders, labor, environmentalists and some business leaders, go rigid at the sound of such idealism. A leader of the Assn. of Washington Business warned at a press conference that passage of Initiative 553 would “make the state of Washington a 92-pound weakling in Congress.”

Under the provisions of the measure, officeholders in Washington state would be subject to the most severe term limits ever enacted in the United States.

If passed and upheld in court (the latter being a big IF), members of the House of Representatives, including Foley, would be allowed only one more term if they have already served more than the maximum three terms alloted. “A last lap around the track,” as one supporter explained. Senators would be allowed a maximum of two terms.

State officials would have term limits imposed retroactively--two terms for governor and terms that add up to no more than 10 consecutive years in the Legislature. Many state officials, therefore, would be out in 1994.

Term-limit initiatives have been passed in California, Oklahoma and Colorado, but none so strict as to count terms served prior to the initiative. Additionally, of the three states’ laws, only Colorado’s seeks to restrict terms in the U.S. House and Senate. That provision may run afoul of federal prerogatives and seems destined for a court battle.

The national network of activists backing term limits say measures may be on the ballot in as many as 17 states next year.

In Washington this fall, opponents are now anxiously pushing the twin electoral hot buttons of Northwest clout and independence.

The federal government is hugely influential in the economics of Washington, both through the management of forest resources and through the U.S. Bonneville Power Administration, which provides some of the cheapest electricity rates in America from hydroelectric generators on the Columbia River.

Safeguarding this low-cost power is a job for a congressional delegation with clout, opponents of the initiative say. So is protecting Boeing’s government contracts, the coast from offshore drilling, Puget Sound from supertankers and the Hanford atomic waste cleanup from budget cuts.

Indeed, this is a state very much attuned and accustomed to the advantages of seniority. Its late U.S. Sens. Henry (Scoop) Jackson and Warren Magnuson, both Democrats, held tremendous power in the 1960s and ‘70s and are still remembered as the Gold Dust Twins for all the federal largess they brought home.

Now, Foley is the only remaining link with the highest levels of power in the nation’s capital.

Opponents also note that despite the general impression of a spontaneous uprising in the grass roots, Initiative 553 is almost wholly financed by powerful out-of-state interests--more so than any campaign in the state’s history.

In a recent copyrighted story, the Tacoma News-Tribune described how 85% of the campaign money for the initiative came from a political organization that was a spinoff of a conservative-libertarian group “controlled by one of the richest families in America and a handful of other Fortune 500 business executives.”

Against these potent arguments, what makes the 553 campaign all the more interesting is that it is favored to win. And by a landslide.

“Every interest group in the state that has spoken has spoken against it. Every newspaper that has spoken has spoken against it,” said University of Washington political science professor David Olson.

But, he added: “It’s going to pass handily. . . . This is a measure of enormous popular appeal. Mass levels of society are upset with the elite levels, and with the rule of officials generally. . . . This is about the S & L crisis, the trade imbalance, the budget deficit, the abuse of power. . . . There is mass disenchantment with the system.”