One of the great secrets of the 1994 election is the fact that Utah already has term limits. Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed, and Gov. Mike Leavitt signed, a responsible, legal term-limits law that goes into effect Jan. 1.
Given that Utah already has term limits, why are Utahns voting on Initiative A, the term limits/runoff election measure, this November?The answer lies in the runoff-election portion of the initiative. Supporters of Initiative A have constantly trumpeted the measure as a term-limits measure. In reality, three-fourths of the initiative's language deals with runoff elections - not term limits.
A runoff election is a second, additional election after the general election. Under the initiative's language, if a candidate fails to get a majority of the vote in the November general election, a second election would be held between the top two candidates. As the nonpartisan Utah Foundation noted in a recently released report, "[t]he real significance of Initiative A for Utahns is the runoff proposal."
Since runoff elections are such an integral part of Initiative A, they should be closely scrutinized. Two major flaws are evident.
First, runoff elections attract dramatically lower voter participation than general elections, and the small voter turnout opens the door to manipulation by well-organized special-interest groups. Under the initiative, after 1994, runoff elections would be held two days before Thanksgiving. The timing would guarantee minimal voter participation. Two years ago, Georgia held a runoff for a U.S. Senate seat at the same time proposed by the initiative. The candidate who won the runoff election triumphed with about half the votes he lost with in the general election.
This track record has been repeated elsewhere. In fact, here in Utah, we experimented with post-primary runoff elections between 1937 and 1947 and then repealed them because the turnout was so low.
Second, runoffs are expensive. This unfunded mandate will cost local governments up to $380,000 each election. In Salt Lake County the cost for a single runoff election would be in excess of $100,000.
Worse, runoff elections will be required for each city council and mayoral contest where a candidate fails to receive an absolute majority. The Utah Foundation noted that if runoffs had been required in 1993, 160 runoff elections would have been triggered. Since cities and counties fund elections out of property taxes, property taxes will go up to pay for runoff elections.
These two points are reinforced by the experiences of other states. Three states have used post-general election runoffs - Georgia, Arizona and Arkansas. Georgia did away with late November runoffs after the 1992 U.S. Senate fiasco. Arkansas saw its law declared unconstitutional. And Arizona voters voted 2-to-1 to repeal its runoff law after it was used the first time in 1990.
All three states that have experimented with post-general-election runoffs have abandoned them as undemocratic and costly. Utah should learn from their experience.
Initiative A has numerous other problems besides the ill-conceived runoff proposal.
It unilaterally limits Utah's congressional representation even if no other state has term limits. Utah's current law limits the congressional delegation only after half the states also agree to apply term limits to their delegation.
Initiative A weakens the application of term limits in Utah. The current Utah term-limits law applies to current and future officeholders. The initiative grants a lifetime exemption to any officeholder who was in office as of April 15, 1993. Thus, term limits would apply to 1.8 million Utahns but never to 433 elite individuals. That's bad policy and it may violate the U.S. and Utah constitutions.
Initiative A has several other unconstitutional and conflicting sections. These flawed provisions will trigger lawsuits that Utah taxpayers will be forced to fund. For instance, the initiative amends four sections of the Utah Code that were repealed two years ago, gives duties to a Utah secretary of state (even though the office was abolished more than a decade ago) and has provisions that violate the time of election provisions and plurality vote requirements of the Utah Constitution.
Given these problems, Utahns must carefully consider whether this measure is wise. Those who have worked to put Initiative A on the ballot have worked hard and are sincere. But this initiative is ill-suited to serve Utah's needs. If Utah wants responsible term limits, the best choice is Utah's current term-limits law, not Initiative A.