We’ve heard of term-limit pledges before, but we didn’t know that you could actually get the pledge to appear on the ballot. As the Rocky Mountain News reports, Democrat Herb Rubenstein gets a few extra lines of text with his name on the CD-7 primary ballot:
Voters in parts of Jefferson, Adams and Arapahoe counties, who started receiving their ballots in the mail last week, will notice the following proviso under his name alone:
“Signed declaration to limit service to 3 terms 2 terms” it reads.
The somewhat cryptic language, which takes up three lines on the ballot, means that Rubenstein has publicly committed to serving for only three terms of two years each if he is elected in the 7th Congressional District. He was the only candidate in the state to get that promise on the ballot.
Rubenstein said he was surprised to find the relatively large notation directly under his name when he examined ballots from across the suburban Denver district this week. But he says it was a pleasant surprise.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Powerful Pear
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Pick Your Poison: Which Trump Cabinet Member Concerns You Most?
BY: QuBase
IN: Pick Your Poison: Which Trump Cabinet Member Concerns You Most?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Pick Your Poison: Which Trump Cabinet Member Concerns You Most?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Thursday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Tom Tancredo proved that term limits are a bad idea, and you shouldn’t make promises no one will believe you’ll keep. A three-term Congressman is a freshman with long pants.
Not so much that Tancredo proved it (that’s another discussion) but that term limits are silly. I think most people who believe in them are really upset about powerful Representatives and Senators from other jurisdictions and want limits to see those people thrown out. (Can’t say I don’t feel that way sometimes.) But the voters of districts are the ones who keep sending the same people back to Congress over and over, and it’s their right to do so. If term limits were reality, I think that would just give the lobbyists even more power since they would be the ones with all the experience.
are really crushing, though. We’re focused on some races this year that are newly competitive for Democrats, but overall the story is always the same: well over 90% of incumbent candidates will be re-elected.
Do you think people in general are really 90% satisfied with their politicians?
From TV time to free frank mail to close relationships with moneyed interests, being already in office has huge advantages that keep political races from truly being a free market of ideas. Generally the name recognition one gets from simply being elected is enough to guarantee the margin of victory.
So what’s the problem? There’s little reason to listen to voters if your odds of being re-elected are excellent almost regardless of what you do.
We must have elected leaders who are accountable to voters. Term limits aren’t perfect, but the alternative is endless machine-style politics and dynasties based on someone’s last name.
…would term limits make elected leaders accountable? Do you believe that Washington corruption is SOLELY a result of extended time in the beltway? I think there’s more to it than that.
I’ll repeat myself: I think that term limits would only enhance the power of special interests and lobbyists.
Do I think 90% of the voters are satisfied with their politicians? Well, they keep re-electing them, don’t they?
If that isn’t the explanation, then what is? That the electorate is comprised of uninformed, easily manipulated losers? That you should restrict their ability to choose to send back the same guy they’ve sent for the past 30 years?
I think we’re on dangerous ground here. The whole idea of democracy (or constitutional representative government, as the wingnuts who rely on Fox News talking points like to call it) is based on the idea that the people are intelligent and savvy enough to make decisions on their own. I believe term limits run counter to that idea.
Besides, look at it this way: Have you voted to send back the incumbent whose had the office for a decade or longer? If you aren’t satisfied with him or her, why do you do it? If you are satisfied, is your support of term limits based on your desire to see other congressmen and senators that don’t represent you be sent home?
Or, conversely, do you always vote for the also-ran the opposing party nominates just to see the incumbent from the other party win by a wide margin? If so, is your support of term limits based on always being on the losing end of the election?
Either way, it’s kind of a sour grapes way to view government.
No, I don’t know what to do about corruption or how to hold officials more accountable. But I don’t think this is the way.
If term limits are across the board then, theoretically, the Legislature or Congress would be a constant revolving team of individuals dedicated to doing what they can during their term in office. Incumbents obviously have the upper hand, in most cases, with party backing and better fundraising capabilities.
The costs of elections to the US Congress is overwhelming for 99% of citizens who wish to run. An average Senate race costs $1 million these days. How can we argue for a citizen congress, as the founders envisioned, when citizens are excluded from the beginning?
Term limits also force the good legislators our of office as well as the bad. In Colorado I see the junior members come in and they don’t have the institutional knowledge of 1) how things get done and 2) what things have been done (for example, bills introduced before and what the problems were).
Finally, seniority in Congress has its perks and if we don’t have incumbents, it is much harder to get what we need for our state. If term limits applied across the board – that would solve that – but in 1995 the Supreme Court ruled states do not have the authority to limit terms. Some states have since limited terms through the initiative process but not all creating an unbalanced playing field.
Tancredo was the leading force in getting the bonehead amendment to the Colorado Constitution approved that gives people running for Congress the “option” to submit the declaration.
Tancredo has never submitted a declaration himself – the hypocrite.
Rubinstein might have considered submitting the declaration that he would NOT agree to term limits. That’s another option.
Herb could get his 84 page memo on the abolishment of the penny on the ballot, he’ll be all set!
The State Supreme Court ruled a few years ago the such labels were not permitted on the ballot.
Has anyone actually seen it on the ballot?
The pledge is there.
And what I found out is that the Colorado Supreme Court only struck down part of the law, but left standing the part which allows the pledge to be on the ballot. Apparently this was a multi-plaintiff case which addressed several issues. The plaintiff who was addressing this specific issue did not live in the district in question and was ruled to not have standing. So this was allowed on a sheer technicality. The part that was struck down was the portion which would have required a negative statement regarding candidates who did not abide by the pledge (ala Tancredo).
I think the legislature should ban this practice in the next session. It amounts to campaigning on your ballot. There should be nothing on there except your name and your party (if its a partisan election).
It’s a constitutional amendment, approved by the voters. Tancredo was instrumental in getting it passed – and then he’s hidden like a sissy, refusing to submit a declaration to his constituents that he was BREAKING his term limits pledge when he decided to break it. See more at http://www.tomtancre…
Tancredo’s opponent in 2002 signed the declaration that he would NOT pledge to serve only three terms. Tancredo – the chief architect of the pledge – has never gotten around to signing a declaration pro or con, the slimeball. See the full story at http://www.tomtancre…
Notwithstanding the legality or the legitimacy of the claim, this is interesting. Average Joe/Jane voter going into the booth sees three names and one has a positive message attached.
So, what’s next? Candidates’ slogans under their names? Corporate sponsorship (this candidate brought to you by Exxon/Mobile). How about one line statements for each candidate reflecting their reason for seeking public office: “I want to be your Representative because I’m really cool”?
Holy shit… Herb is on the ballot?
When I lived in Oregon years ago, the state allowed candidates to add slogans up to twelve words long beneath their names on the ballot. My favorite was: “People who think in twelve-word slogans shouldn’t be on this ballot.”
Finally, someone with term limits. Herb Rubenstein is the guy that is willing to go to congress to HELP THE AMERICAN CITIZENS as opposed to gaining power and re-electing himself over and over again.
Now you tell me, why on Earth would that be a bad thing? Shows his true character and what he’s really trying to do.