Did Idaho need a 1997 ballot initiative requiring state, county, municipal, and school district candidates to pledge compliance with a 1994 term-limits act that already legally bound them?

Plain-English summary

Despite the file slug, this certificate addresses the proposed Initiative Regarding State, County, Municipal and School District Term Limits Pledges filed by Beau Parent on June 26, 1997. The initiative would have authorized candidates for state, county, municipal, and school district office to sign the following pledge:

I hereby declare that during my term of office, if elected, I will adhere to the 1994 Term Limits Act, as passed by the voters of Idaho.

Candidates submitting a signed pledge would have the legend "Pledges to adhere to the 1994 Term Limits Act, as passed by the voters of Idaho" printed next to their names on the ballot. Candidates who declined to sign would appear on the ballot with no legend.

Deputy AG Matthew J. McKeown, writing for AG Alan G. Lance, raised two substantive concerns.

First, the necessity for the act was not apparent. State, county, municipal, and school district officials were already bound by the 1994 Term Limits Act. Only the congressional portion of the 1994 act had been struck down by reviewing courts (a clear reference to U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)). The pledge, then, would do nothing more than let candidates promise to comply with a law that already applied to them. The voters' confusion was the AG's main worry: a candidate who refused to sign the pledge would still be bound by the same restrictions as one who signed, but only one of them would have the legend appearing on the ballot. That asymmetry would mislead voters into thinking the legend identified candidates with different legal obligations, when in fact the obligations were identical.

Second, whether ballot legends of any kind were permissible in Idaho was an open question. Simpson v. Cenarrusa, then awaiting decision in the Idaho Supreme Court, presented the argument that ballot legends are an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote. If Simpson came down against legends, this initiative's central mechanism would be invalid.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why was a pledge to obey the law unnecessary?

Because the underlying law was already mandatory. Idaho voters had passed the 1994 Term Limits Act, which set ballot access restrictions for statewide elected officials, legislators, and county officials. Only the congressional portion was invalidated by federal court. State and local candidates could not legally exceed the term limits in the 1994 Act regardless of whether they signed Beau Parent's pledge. The pledge added no enforcement bite, no consequence for breaking the pledge beyond what already applied to breaking the law, and no commitment a candidate would not have already been required to honor.

What was the voter-confusion problem?

Imagine two candidates for the same office. Candidate A signs the pledge; the ballot says "Pledges to adhere to the 1994 Term Limits Act, as passed by the voters of Idaho" next to A's name. Candidate B refuses to sign; B's name appears with no legend. A reasonable voter would conclude that A is bound by term limits and B is not. But that conclusion would be wrong: both A and B are equally bound by the underlying 1994 Act. The legend asymmetry would mislead voters about the candidates' actual legal obligations, which the AG flagged as the main practical concern with the proposal.

How does this initiative compare with the congressional pledge initiative?

The same office issued certificates the next day on a separate initiative covering congressional candidates (the C070897 certificate, also filed by Donna Weaver). The congressional version had stronger constitutional issues, because the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton had already struck down state-imposed congressional term limits, and section 6 of that initiative's "deemed service" rule risked qualifying as a state-imposed qualification. The state-and-local version reviewed in this certificate did not raise the Thornton problem because the underlying state and local term limits were valid; the issue was purely whether the pledge mechanism added anything useful.

What was the Simpson v. Cenarrusa case?

Simpson v. Cenarrusa, Supreme Court No. 23526, was a then-pending Idaho Supreme Court challenge to the 1996 term-limits ballot legend initiative. One argument was that the legend mechanism unconstitutionally infringed the right to vote by injecting the state's preferred political message into the ballot itself. The AG warned that whatever the Idaho Supreme Court decided in Simpson would likely control the validity of the pledge legend in this 1997 proposal.

Background and statutory framework

Idaho's term-limits architecture had three layers as of mid-1997: the 1994 Term Limits Act for state and local elected offices, the federal Constitution for congressional offices (after Thornton invalidated state-imposed congressional limits in 1995), and various proposed initiatives in the pipeline trying to use ballot legends or pledges to put pressure on candidates to comply with or support term-limits goals.

This certificate was one of three the AG's office issued on July 7, 1997. The other two addressed an Incremental Property Tax Relief initiative (school M&O levy phaseout) and a State Term Limits and Lobbying Reform initiative. A fourth certificate the next day (July 8) addressed the Congressional Term Limits Pledges initiative. The certificates illustrate how active the initiative process was in mid-1997 around term limits and tax policy.

Citations

• Idaho Code §§ 33-443A (proposed), 34-907C (proposed), 34-1809, 50-478A (proposed)
• Simpson v. Cenarrusa, Supreme Court No. 23526 (argued May 7, 1997)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C070797_b.pdf

Original opinion text

July 7, 1997
The Honorable Pete T. Cenarrusa
Secretary of State
HAND DELIVERED
RE: Certificate of Review; Initiative Regarding State, County, Municipal and School District Term Limits Pledges

Dear Mr. Cenarrusa:

An initiative petition was filed with your office on June 26, 1997, concerning term limits pledges for state, county, municipal and school district offices. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and has prepared the following advisory comments.

MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPORT

The proposed initiative would authorize candidates for state, county, municipal and school district office to sign the following pledge:

I hereby declare that during my term of office, if elected, I will adhere to the 1994 Term Limits Act, as passed by the voters of Idaho.

Candidates for those offices are also authorized to submit the signed pledge along with their declaration of candidacy or nomination paper. Once the candidate has signed and submitted the pledge, the following legend is required to appear on the official ballots: "Pledges to adhere to the 1994 Term Limits Act, as passed by the voters of Idaho." Apparently, candidates who decline to sign the pledge would have their names appear on the ballot with no legend.

Section 1

Section 1 of the proposed initiative states that the law, upon passage, should be referred to as the "State, County, Municipal and School District Term Limits Pledge Act of 1998."

Section 2

Section 2 of the proposed initiative would create Idaho Code § 34-907C, which contains the pledge procedure for candidates for state and county office.

Section 3

Section 3 of the proposed initiative would create Idaho Code § 50-478A, which contains the identical pledge procedure for candidates for municipal office.

Section 4

Section 4 of the proposed initiative would create Idaho Code § 33-443A, which contains the identical pledge procedure for school district trustee candidates.

Section 5

Section 5 of the proposed initiative states that the pledge procedure can be initiated by any candidate who files for candidacy "on or after one day after" passage of the initiative by the voters.

Section 6

Section 6 of the proposed initiative contains a severability clause.

The proposed initiative raises two distinct substantive issues. First, the necessity for the act is not apparent. State, county, municipal and school district officials are already subject to the ballot access restrictions enacted by the voters in 1994. Only the portion of the 1994 initiative mandating term limits for congressional offices has been struck down by reviewing courts. Therefore, the proposed initiative does nothing more than permit candidates to pledge their intention to comply with a state law that is already compulsory. Candidates who opt not to sign the pledge would be subject to the same ballot access restrictions as those who choose to sign the pledge. The fact that the legend, "Pledges to adhere to the 1994 Term Limits Act, as passed by the voters of Idaho," would appear after some candidates' names on the ballot and would not appear after others' would only serve to confuse the voters since the 1994 Term Limits Act applies equally to all candidates.

Second, whether ballot legends of any kind are permissible in Idaho is still an open question. In Simpson v. Cenarrusa, Supreme Court No. 23526 (argued May 7, 1997), one of the arguments presented by the petitioners was that ballot legends are an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote. The Idaho Supreme Court is likely to rule on that question in the near future. If the Idaho Supreme Court rules in favor of the petitioners on the issue of ballot legends, the proposed initiative will probably be invalidated by a reviewing court.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed measure has been reviewed for form, style and matters of substantive import and that the recommendations set forth above have been communicated to petitioner Beau Parent by deposit in the U.S. Mail of a copy of this certificate of review.

Sincerely,
ALAN G. LANCE
Attorney General

Analysis by:
MATTHEW J. MCKEOWN
Deputy Attorney General