MISSOURI WATCH: LIMITING OFFICEHOLDERS' TERMS ALSO LIMITS THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC

If the courts allow present language to remain in a proposed constitutional amendment on term limits, Missourians will henceforth be handed ballots that purport to give a congressional candidate's view on a single public issue. The language being proposed for what will be labeled Constitutional Amendment No. 9 on the November general election ballot is nothing short of absurd, not to mention demeaning to the intelligence of responsible voters in our state.

Term limit proponents in Missouri, copying tactics devised elsewhere, want the names of candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to bear either the legend "Disregarded Voters' Instruction on Term Limits" or "Declined to Pledge to Support Term Limits." Of course, those candidates willing to let an ad hoc group tell them how they should vote will not be encumbered by any such pejorative labeling.

This ill advised rush to restrict the abilities of outstanding legislators, at both the state and federal levels, has its genesis from frustrated partisans unable to win terms of office at the polls. In some instances, the initiative has been launched by either Democratic or Republican organizations that have grown frustrated by their inability to elect a sufficient number of party faithful to control one or both chambers of state or federal legislatures. In some quarters, this tactic is called the "Pendergast Proverb:" If you can't win an election at the polls, rig it.

And that's what pro-term limiters have done: they want to rig the ballot so that candidates who do not agree with their premise will suffer the calumnies of voter reaction. And what is more reactionary than labeling a candidate unwilling to adhere to rules and decisions that were never adopted nor approved by anyone save the authors?

Subtle changes have already begun appearing in the Missouri General Assembly, which now operates under the rules devised by an anonymous group of Missourians who arbitrarily set the tenure limits on all 197 members of the state's General Assembly. The changes now in effect have already started an exodus of outstanding, experienced legislators from the state Capitol, with many more departures planned at the very next election. Those Democrats and Republicans who have decided they are uncomfortable with legal limits on their service to the public are some of the best in Jefferson City, and as early as next session the state will miss their departures.

If limiting state and federal legislative terms was the most important order of business before the public, there might be some reason to label dissenting opinions, but no one honestly believes this question is even on a list of the 10 most critical issues confronting Jefferson City and Washington. It might even be helpful, if perhaps illegal, to label officials who voted to increase the overall state tax load or who voted more appropriations than the federal government received in revenue. But even this highly important subject can be interpreted in various ways by various outsiders.

For example, what about Missouri lawmakers who year after year ignored inadequate funding for the state's school foundation formula? While perhaps adhering to a no-tax policy, these legislators willingly permitted the state to deprive local schools of badly needed funds to improve educational standards. Unless you are a devout member of the Libertarian Party, you would probably agree that underfinancing Missouri's public educational system was worse than voting needed funds for young boys and girls in classrooms all across the state. Then why not require labels for legislative candidates that read: "Disregarded Voters' Wishes on Improving Public Schools"? Why not a label that reads: "Declined to Pledge Support for Better Public Schools"? If you happen to believe that getting rid of special interest campaign money is an absolutely essential reform in the democratic process, then I am sure you would want labels on state and federal legislative candidates indicating their support of your cause. Ad infinitum.

Term limits sends one simple, single message to Missourians and voters in every other state in the nation. That message is loud and clear: You are incapable of recognizing "good" and "bad" public servants by either re-electing them or throwing them out of office. Since you are incapable of making intelligent decisions, we will make them for you.

You have a right to feel insulted. You have been.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of the Missouri News and Editorial Service.