Right-to-Die Measure Trails in Washington

A historic ballot proposition that would legalize euthanasia for the terminally ill of Washington state and a term-limit initiative both trailed in election returns Tuesday night and were projected to fail.

The term-limit initiative sought a quick end to the careers of U.S. House Speaker Thomas S. Foley and a hundred other senior politicians in Washington state. With slightly more than half the vote counted, the initiative was trailing 53% to 47%, and the Associated Press predicted its defeat.

On Initiative 119, which would smash age-old medical and religious taboos and legalize physician-assisted suicides, voters were decidedly more tentative than in pre-election polls, which showed more than 70% supporting the measure. The margin against the measure was 55% to 45% in preliminary returns.

But state officials cautioned that many uncounted absentee ballots made the vote particularly volatile.

Abortion rights activists saw a seesaw battle for a proposition affirming women’s right to abortions under Washington state law, no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the future about federal constitutional guarantees. They found themselves falling behind, 51% to 49%.

Also in Washington state, longtime residents appeared to have lost their initiative campaign to reduce their own property taxes and shift a greater part of the burden to newcomers who purchased homes after 1985.

Secretary of State Ralph Munro cautioned that it could be days before the last of a record number of absentee are counted and the outcome of the ballot propositions is certain. Voters had until midnight Tuesday to mail in their absentee ballots.

Elsewhere in the nation, Texas ended years of debate and voted itself a state lottery. Texas was the largest state not to have a lottery.

In Missouri, the largest tax increase proposal in state history, a $385-million education tax, was defeated by a lopsided 2-to-1 margin despite warnings from state leaders that schools faced bankruptcy.

An effort to repeal a St. Paul, Minn., gay-rights ordinance was defeated.

In Washington, D.C., voters overwhelmingly approved reinstatement of the nation’s first liability law on assault weapons. The ordinance seeks to hold manufacturers and sellers legally responsible for the damage caused by these weapons. The measure was passed once before by the D.C. Council, but it was then repealed under threat of congressional retaliation against the district.

But the bright lights of this year’s off-year ballot proposition votes shone most brightly on the Pacific Northwest where, just by chance, several exciting political currents converged in the state of Washington. Voter turnout was reported at near record levels.

Nothing was as far-reaching as the proposal to legalize physician-assisted suicide for those diagnosed as having less than six months to live. The measure also sought to clarify the law to assure patients the right to refuse in advance any forced feeding if they are ill and incapacitated.

Many Washington state voters found themselves uncommonly challenged by the debate over the issue, which called into question society’s essential spiritual, ethical and philosophical values. The Catholic Church--on the opposing side--and the Hemlock Society--on the supporting side--led the major advocacy groups, but doctors, hospitals, hospices, nursing homes and the elderly all were drawn into the argument. News media from around the world converged here to watch the vote.

Cheered on by public opinion polls showing a vast majority supporting their ideas, advocates of euthanasia already have moved ahead with similar ballot proposition campaigns for 1992 in other states, including California. But the results in Washington state are the first test of how voters react not just to the concept but to the actual language of life and death, yes or no, on a ballot.

Many of the same organizations and individuals split along similar lines over the abortion rights initiative. It was pursued by women’s rights activists as a matter of “abortion insurance” that puts into state law the abortion rights of the landmark Roe vs. Wade case in the event the new solidly conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturns that precedent.

The campaign was interesting chiefly in that hardened abortion opponents did not choose to fight the issue in a straightforward way. Rather than trying to win by arguing against abortion on moral grounds, opponents ran TV ads saying the proposition was unnecessary because a woman’s right to abortion already was assured here by a more restrictive statute.

For raw intensity, nothing matched the political battle over term limits in Washington state. Foley came out spitting mad, trying to douse the spreading wildfire of voter discontent--and to preserve his own career after 14 terms in the House.

Term-limit measures have passed previously in California, Colorado and Oklahoma. But only Washington state sought to apply the limits based on terms already served and to officeholders in the Congress as well as at the state level. Colorado is the only other state to seek to limit congressional terms, but its limits will not apply until after the turn of the century.

Under the Washington state measure, Foley, the remainder of the House delegation, the state’s two U.S. senators and 75% of its Legislature would be allowed one final term after 1992, but no more.

Foley branded it an infringement on the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth qualifications for election to Congress.

Foley and other opponents suggested that term limits were a ploy to strip Washington state of its seniority in Congress and leave its natural resources vulnerable to plundering by outsiders.

Backers of the proposition, including Democratic presidential candidate and former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., relentlessly attacked the incumbents for acting single-mindedly to perpetuate themselves.

Term limits for officials also were hot topics in municipal elections around the country. In Cincinnati, residents endorsed limits on City Council members, but White Plains, N.Y., voters said no. A non-binding referendum in Worcester, Mass., also expressed support for term limits.

Researcher Doug Conner contributed to this story.

CALIFORNIA PLAN: Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum proposes limit on congressional terms. A3