Initiative A may be as dead as Merrill Cook's political career, but the spirit of term limits is still alive and well.

Both proponents and opponents of Initiative A seem to agree that Tuesday's decisive two-to-one thrashing of Initiative A "was absolutely not a vote against term limits," says Steve Taggert of Utahns for Responsible Term Limits, the group that spearheaded the successful opposition to Initiative A."We already have term limits (passed by the 1994 Legislature) - they take effect Jan. 1 for state officeholders. The question facing voters was if Initiative A was a better way to do it and do people want runoff elections."

By a margin of 65 to 35 percent, Utahns said no to Initiative A, which in addition to limiting the terms of state and federal officeholders would have required runoff elections in those races where the winning candidate garnered less than 50 percent of the vote.

Nationally, Utah was the only state of those with a term-limit question on the ballot to vote against it. States approving restrictions on politicans' re-election bids included Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Nevada, as well as Washington, D.C.

"People were surprised when they read the fine print," Taggert said. "They did not know that current officeholders would be exempt. They did not know that runoff elections were part of it and they simply did not want to have to deal with a second election and all the political ads that go along with it."

Congressional candidate Merrill Cook, who pumped considerable amounts of his own money into the term-limitation drive, sees it quite differently. He believes Utahns were overwhelmed by a political establishment bent on maintaining the status quo and a populace unwilling to challenge the establishment.

And he firmly believes the initiative was sabotaged by Lt. Gov. Olene Walker, a Republican member in good standing with that establishment.

"Her office harassed our petitioners, they investigated them as possible forgers and they asked the county attorney and attorney general to investigate my wife and I as felons," he said. "She wouldn't have dared do that if I were a Republican. Olene Walker needs to realize we live in a democracy and we need an independent elections office. "

Cook admits the defeat of Initiative A - which promised to retire career politicians - probably sounds a death knell for citizen-initiated government reform. The defeat "shows you just how powerful the establishment is, just how entrenched the power brokers are in this state."

Taggert, however, said the effort to defeat Initiative A was a "shoestring campaign" consisting of himself, retiring Speaker of the House Rob Bishop and about $50,000 in campaign funds. "The reality was the establishment was afraid of the issue," Taggert said.

In fact, a majority of voters in all 29 counties in Utah rejected the initiative.

Cook obtained an estimated 130,000 signatures on petitions that required the lieutenant governor to place the initiative on the ballot. The petition campaign, although dogged by allegations of forged signatures, generated widespread support. As few as five weeks ago, a Deseret News poll indicated almost three out of every four Utahns supported the measure.

Organized opposition to Initiative A then focused on the fact that state lawmakers in 1994 had passed a bill limiting the terms of federal and state elected officials. However, the law only applies to congressmen and senators after at least 24 other states pass term-limitation laws.

On other issues before the voters, Utahns also rejected a constitutional amendment that would have permitted the nonsectarian study of religion, and they passed two other constitutional amendments, one guaranteeing certain legal rights to crime victims and another changing how interest generated by school trust lands is invested.

The defeat of seemingly non-controversial Proposition 3, by a margin of 46 to 54 percent, was relatively surprising. A task force of lawmakers and citizens had haggled for months over compromise wording of the proposed amendment.

The amendment would have read, "The study of the influence of religion, the comparative study of religions, or the theistic, agnostic and atheistic assumptions relevant to the educational cur-ri-cu-lum, including cultural, heritage, political theory, moral theory, scientific thought or societal values, does not constitute either religious instruction or a sectarian practice forbidden by the Utah Constitution."

The measure appeared to have broad support. In fact, the only initial opposition came from the Utah Society of Separationists, which pointed out that the nonsectarian study of religion already is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Support began slipping for the amendment only recently. In last Friday's Deseret News, Brigham Young University political science professor Richard Davis characterized Proposition 3 as "the religious right attempting to use the public schools as pulpits for their doctrines." He called the measure "not merely unnecessary" but "potentially quite dangerous."

Rep. Kelly Atkinson, D-West Jordan and co-sponsor of the proposition, was mildly disappointed, but he agreed the constitutional amendment may not have been necessary. "The voters said no, it is not necessary, and I have to go along with the voters," he said.

Proposition 1, a victims' rights measure with broad bipartisan support, passed by a 69-to-31-percent margin. The amendment eliminates the requirement that victims testify at preliminary hearings, and it guarantees victims the right to speak to a judge or parole board during criminal proceedings.

"This marks a 180-degree turn on how the criminal justice system treats victims," said Attorney General Jan Graham, a chief proponent of the amendment. "What happens now is that victims of crime are guaranteed they will be treated with respect and heard in court. It is now not only a right of the accused, but of the victim."

Proposition 2, which passed by a 70-to-30-percent margin, generated little debate. The amendment allows interest generated by the School Trust Fund to be reinvested in the trust fund rather than automatically appropriated to public education - an accounting process that will generate more money for education in the long-run.

******

Additional Information

View Comments

Utah voters have passed few initiatives

The fact that Initiative A failed is not all that surprising. Historically, attempting to change Utah law through the citizen initiative process is difficult. Attempts four years ago to remove the sales tax on food fell flat, as have attempts to roll back tax increases.

In fact, the last citizen initiative to be approved by voters was in 1976 when voters approved a measure requiring a public vote before cities and counties could add fluoride to drinking water.

While passage of citizen initiatives is quite rare, voter approval of constitutional amendments is rather common. The passage of Propositions 1 and 2 mark the 170th and 171st times Utahns have amended the state constitution - an average of almost two times per year since statehood.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.