Incumbents still in the crosshairs

Judging by the recent election results, incumbents are in trouble everywhere.

New Jersey voters, fed up with the tax and spend policies of Democratic Gov. James Florio, turned out Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature. Entrenched legislators in Virginia fell like flies, nearly giving control of the Virginia Senate to Republicans. Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania and for governor in Kentucky were victorious after painting their opponents as hopelessly out-of-touch insiders. Mississippi's incumbent governor was defeated.

Though term limits passed in several communities around the country, the mother of all term limits, Initiative 553 in Washington State, was defeated by 54%-46%. What gives here? What gives is the old maxim of former House Speaker Tip O'Neill: all politics is local.

After enjoying a 2-to-1 lead in the polls, Initiative 553 was defeated by a sharp shift in voter sentiment. This shift occurred in the last three days as opponents to term limits raised the specter of California's growing power in the U.S. Congress. California will hold one of eight seats in the U.S. House after this year's reapportionment.

The argument went something like this: If Washington state lost its 26-year veteran -- House Speaker Tom Foley from Spokane -- California would use its growing power in Congress to force oil drilling off the Pacific Northwest coast, increase electric power rates from the large federal hydroelectric complex that serves the region with cheap power, and legislate inter-basin water transfers. A threat to raid water from the Columbia River basin and take it down to California is guaranteed to get the attention of voters in the Pacific Northwest ... and it did.

Even a suggestion to study the feasibility of such a transfer was checkmated some years ago by Washington Sens. Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson.

So, local politics and a popular and powerful speaker defeated term limits in Washington. Nevertheless, term limits is headed for the ballot in more than 15 states. It's an issue that won't die.

What happens next? Those who oppose term limits say they learned a lesson from 553: you can't beat something with nothing. Those opposing term limits are now organizing. They are led by the National Rifle Association, the National Education Association, Phillip Morris and other major lobbying organizations who like the cozy relationships they have with career politicians.

The lesson for those favoring term limits is the need for a Constitutional amendment.

There are two ways to do it. First, if 34 states request it, the Congress must call a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution. Or, two-thirds of each house of Congress can pass an amendment for ratification by a minimum of 38 states.

Because the convention option has never been used -- and most people don't seem to want to use it-- proponents must persuade two-thirds of each house of Congress to act on a term limit amendment for ratification by the states. Because congressional incumbents view their jobs as lifelong careers, this is highly unlikely. That's why there is growing interest in forcing candidates for Congress in 1992 to take a pledge to vote for a term limit amendment in the next session of Congress.

Whatever course is taken, it is clear the voters feel the country's not living up to its potential and that career politicians have hijacked the ship of state. They want it back. My guess is they'll get it: 1992 will not be a good year for incumbents.