ENDORSEMENTOn a scale of importance and relevance to most voters, Question 3 among the proposed state constitution amendments on next Tuesday’s general election ballot has a mid or low ranking. But in terms of fairness and principle, no. 3 shoots
ENDORSEMENTOn a scale of importance and relevance to most voters,
Question 3 among the proposed state constitution amendments on next Tuesday’s
general election ballot has a mid or low ranking.
But in terms of fairness
and principle, no. 3 shoots to the top.
The amendment question is, “Shall
the Reapportionment Commission be assigned the duty to maintain the staggering
of Senate terms in a manner that is equitable for all candidates in an
election?” The answer: You bet it should.
Here’s the deal. The state
Senate’s 25 members serve four-year terms that are staggered so that half of
the senators are up for election at any one time. Currently, 12 senators
elected in 1998 are serving through 2002. Thirteen others will be elected next
Tuesday.
The state constitution requires that because 2001 is a year for
formulating a new reapportionment plan, all senatorial terms must end with the
general election in the year in which the plan takes effect – in this case,
2002. The way things are scheduled right now to play out, all 25 senators would
face election in two years.
That’s unfair because the senators who are
elected this year will get only two years in office instead of the usual four
before having to face voters again. Some voters might like that as an early
chance to toss out senators who they don’t like. But that’s not the issue.
What’s at stake here is equal treatment. Senators are suppposed to get
four-year terms, period.
To make that happen, the so-called staggered
Senate terms amendment, if approved by voters, would require a four-year term
be assigned to legislative districts where the majority of the voters are
represented by a senator who served a two-year before reapportionment. Or, if
the majority of voters in a district had a senator serving a four-year term
pre-reapportionment, that seat would be assigned a two-year term.
It all
sounds complicated. But boiled down, amendment no. 3 is about fairness to
senators and the voters who elect and are represented by them. It deserves to
pass.
