Tactics obvious for strict BC term limits to win

Now that the Oathbreakers on the Bossier City Council have surrendered on the issue of letting the people vote on strict term limits, backers of those amendments still have several steps to take to ensure eventual implementation.

This week, the Council voted unanimously of all present finally to send to the State Bond Commission – months late, according to the city’s charter – amendments petitioned by the public to a three-term lifetime and retroactive limit on the service of city councilors and the mayor. Despite the Charter mandating that the Council do this shortly after petition certification, five councilors – Republicans David Montgomery, Jeff Free, and Vince Maggio, plus Democrat Bubba Williams and independent Jeff Darby – on multiple occasions refused to authorize that.

That charter violation, when prodded by a district court to rectify, brought their refusal. Only when a city resident, Cassie Rogers, aided by fellow members of the Bossier Term Limits Coalition, brought the matter to the attention of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who affirmed the Council had no option but to resolve the matter to an election and suggested that not only did failure to do so amount to violating their oaths of office but even could rise to the level of a drawing a felony charge of malfeasance, did they capitulate.

Even in defeat, Maggio and Darby couldn’t bring themselves to attend the meeting where their counterparts would have to face humiliation. Maggio had to tend to what observers termed a family emergency, but Darby – famed for being the George Wallace of term limits – didn’t have made public any excuse at all for his absence. As for Montgomery, Free, and Williams, drained of their typical braggadocio and arrogance, they sat stoically by as wordlessly they backed down, joining the pair of councilors who kept to their oaths of office throughout, Republicans Chris Smith and Brian Hammons.

Thus, strict terms limits are in play and when they appear on the ballot will garner public approval. Yet a lot has to happen to ensure this will of the people actually becomes policy, beginning right now and potentially lasting over the next couple of years.

That first step involves GOP Mayor Tommy Chandler not asking the Commission to expedite approval of the amendments for these to appear on the May 3 ballot and instead letting things take their course for these to be on the Oct. 11 ballot. This works for two reasons.

First, the issue of term limits raises voters’ passions, and heavily in the favor of limits. This means the lower stimulus the election, the more likely limits pass as even if the only item on the ballot the core voters for it will turn out and in vastly larger numbers than those against. May 3 likely will have other items on the ballot – for Bossier Citians, runoffs for elected offices including (best guess with qualifying later this week) the citywide at-large councilor positions.

By contrast, Oct. 11 may have nothing on scheduled for it and even if it does in Bossier City that would be merely state constitutional amendments that don’t drive many people to the polls. Even with that this makes it a lower-stimulus election than with city offices up for grabs.

However, well before that is the Mar. 29 city election which also contain three charter amendments: a charter replacement (of dubious legality, but that would have to be litigated only if it passes) and a weaker term limits amendment of three terms but neither retroactive nor lifetime. Each could present problems for strict limits.

Passage of the weaker limits could lead to a propaganda point against the election for stricter limits: that limits already are in place so the stricter kind are superfluous and need not be turned out or voted for. This is why the Oct. 11 election date is preferred, as the zealous backing developed for strict terms limits among a segment of the public aware of the difference between the two kinds becomes magnified as an advantage in a lower-stimulus election. Failure at the polls of weak limits, driven by strict limit supporters, would moot this but may not be possible given the appetite generally in the public for limits, so this publicity tactic will have to be anticipated and countered in the campaign for strict limits.

Terming the charter matter on the Mar. 29 ballot as replacement or changes captures perfectly the deliberately ambiguous situation opponents of strict limits wanted when they muscled through the product of a charter review commission stacked with their allies. Their hopes is that if the charter item passes then it will be considered a “new” charter that moots the strict limits amendment that then allegedly applies only to the “old” version. Whether the courts would agree is another matter, but that leaves as the easiest way to defeat that tactic voting down the Charter.

Thus, supporters of the strict term limits amendment on Mar. 29 should vote against any changes to the Charter. And if it passes, they shouldn’t wait for strict limits to pass on Oct. 11 and then have opponents sue to overturn that on the mootness argument; rather, immediately they should sue to invalidate the Mar. 29 result on a number of well-founded bases.

If that doesn’t work, there might be another protracted legal fight over an Oct. 11 passage that could stretch months more. The worst outcome would be the judiciary invalidating that election results, and the petitioning process beginning anew that will have less momentum with weaker limits in place.

 So, for supporters of strict limits, to maximize chances of success they need to have that measure voted upon in October, defeat all March items, and then gird their loins for potential legal actions. Just because the Oathbreakers and their allies went down in flames doesn’t mean they’ll stop fighting with every breath strict limits. That they would betray the citizenry until this point shows this defeat to be just a tactical retreat that they and their insider allies will try to reverse as soon as they are able.