HIGH COURT DELIVERS BLOW TO TERM-LIMIT BRANDING ON BALLOTS

Editorials of the Southeast Missourian have long championed term limits for elected officials, both at the state and federal levels. But one of the methods being used across the country to attain that goal has never found favor here: Ballot branding of candidates who don't support term limits.

Last November, Missouri was among several states that adopted a measure to require such ballot branding. The Southeast Missourian vigorously opposed that plan. Simply put, the measure would require future ballots to indicate which candidates don't support term limits. This, the thinking goes, would help voters in favor of term limits to decide how to vote -- at the same time applying pressure to candidates who are against term limits.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court may have knocked this inane effort off its feet. A similar measure in Arkansas was challenged, an the state supreme court struck down the ballot-branding requirement. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week decided to let the Arkansas decision stand.

Other states, besides Missouri and Arkansas, that have adopted the ballot branding include Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota. The status of the requirement in those states is up in the air, thanks to the Supreme Courts action. In addition, the requirement is being separately challenged in virtually every state where it has been enacted.

Term limits make sense, but attempts like this to push candidates to be in favor of limits in order to avoid being labeled as an opponent on future ballots don't make any sense at all. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the only way to get term limits at the federal level is to adopt a constitutional amendment. Ballot branding doesn't further that cause, even though supporters maintained it would.

Most Americans favor term limits, not because they are the best solution to politics as usual in Washington, but because limits offer the only practical solution to a problem that isn't all that easy to solve. It is time to get on with a constitutional amendment instead of playing games with names on ballots.