Issue No. 3 is long, complex, but has some good features
By Roy Ockert Jr.
Oct. 7, 2014
The first thing you notice about Issue No. 3, the third proposed constitutional amendment referred by the Arkansas General Assembly to the Nov. 4 general election ballots, is its length. If passed, it would add more than 7,000 words to our 1874 Constitution, which is already too long.
Publishing the three proposed amendments in the state’s newspapers, as required by law, takes up two full pages, each three columns wide, in a fairly small type face — small meaning it could give you a headache trying to read. The first two proposals fill nearly all of the first column. Issue No. 3 starts at the bottom of column 1 and goes on for five more columns.
You won’t see all that on your ballot, of course, so after taking a couple of ibuprofen, I’ll summarize the proposal here, with a few comments along the way.
There is much to like in Issue No. 3, including an attempt to require higher ethical standards of our public officials, an independent commission to set salaries and expense reimbursements for state officials, and a more practical term limits provision. But there is so much in the proposal that almost everyone can find something they don’t like, and some will vote no just because of its complexity.
Sponsored by Rep. Warwick Sabin, D-Little Rock, and Sen. Jon Woods, R-Springdale, the proposal’s popular name is “An Amendment Regulating Contributions to Candidates for State or Local Office, Barring Gifts from Lobbyists to Certain State Officials, Providing for Setting Salaries of Certain State Officials, and Setting Term Limits for Members of the General Assembly.”
As House Joint Resolution 1009 in 2013, it passed the Senate by 23-4 with seven senators not voting and one excused. However, one other senator listed as for the resolution later corrected the record to show that he did not vote. It then passed the House 76-3 with 20 not voting and one voting present.
Those actions made HJR 1009 one of the three amendments the Legislature could propose in 2013. Considering its diversity, it’s remarkable that Issue No. 3 made the cut.
Let’s deal first with what is probably the most controversial provision and the simplest — term limits.
Current law allows state senators to serve two 4-year terms and state representatives to serve three 2-year terms, meaning that an individual can serve a total of 14 years in the Legislature. Issue No. 3 would change that to a total of 16 years, regardless of position. All 16 could, for example, be in the House.
While almost every business or institution in our society values experience and efficiency in those who serve it, our term limits law has given us inexperience and mediocrity. That’s especially true in the House of Representatives, where a “senior” representative is one with four years of part-time experience.
Another major provision of Issue 3 is the establishment of an independent citizens commission to set salaries of constitutional officers, legislators, Supreme Court justices and all judges down to the District Court level. This section also wipes out current laws regarding expenses of legislators and other officials, which have been too often abused, and requires the commission to recommend expense reimbursement rates and rules.
The commission would have seven members, each serving a term of four years (but no more than two terms) — two appointed by the governor, two by the president of the Senate, two by the speaker of the House and one by the chief justice.
The original pay levels set in the Constitution, which started out at $4,000 a year for the governor and justices, as well as more modern, adjustable levels set under Amendment 70 in 1993, would be deleted. Essentially, the lawmakers would give up the authority to set their own salaries and those of other state officials. The Legislature would be left only to find the necessary money.
Issue No. 3 would also any candidate for public office, or any person acting in his behalf, from accepting a campaign contribution from anyone other than an individual, a political party or party committee, a legislative caucus committee or a political action committee. In other words, campaign contributions from corporations and unions would be banned.
Campaign contributions from any individual or approved entity would be limited to $5,000 per calendar year.
Several other significant changes in current law would be effected under Issue No. 3, if passed.
• A former legislator could not become a lobbyist until two years after leaving office, doubling the present limitation. This would apply only to those elected on or after this election.
• The seven state constitutional officers, legislators and members of the independent citizens committee could not solicit or accept any gift from a lobbyist. Excluded would be informational materials, travel reimbursements, food and drink at a planned event for a specific governmental body or gifts from a person directly related to the official.
• Salaries of state officials could not be decreased but could be increased by no more than 15 percent annually.
• Violations of the ethics provisions would fall under the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Ethics Commission, which unfortunately is already underfunded.
On balance, Issue No. 3 has several worthwhile reforms but perhaps not be enough to secure passage.
Roy Ockert is editor emeritus of The Jonesboro Sun. He may be reached by e-mail at royo@suddenlink.net.