State Justices To Hear Term Limits Motion Which Court Has Jurisdiction Over Lawsuit Will Be Decided

The state Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear the first skirmish over state term limits - a friendly argument over which court has jurisdiction over a legal challenge to the voter-approved law.

At the request of the court’s chief administrator, Geoffrey Crooks, the chief justice, Barbara Durham, agreed to put the question to the full nine-member court on June 5, with an eye to a relatively quick resolution.

Crooks said he personally doesn’t see much need to send the case to Thurston County Superior Court, as the state requests. But he said “the worst possible scenario” would be for him to put it on the high court’s calendar and have the court later decide it didn’t have jurisdiction.

Six legislators, affected voters and civic leaders are challenging the constitutionality of the term limits initiative passed by the voters in 1992. Federal courts already have thrown out the limits on the state’s U.S. House and Senate members, but the law still limits terms of state legislators, the governor and lieutenant governor.

The limits are three two-year terms for House members and two four-year terms for senators, the governor and lieutenant governor. The law triggers with the 1998 election, with about 30 House incumbents barred from appearing on the ballot.

Both sides asked Crooks on Thursday to decide whether the challenge can originate in the Supreme Court or whether it needs to begin in lower court. James Pharris, the senior assistant attorney general who is defending the law, urged transfer of the case to Superior Court to avoid any problems with jurisdiction.

The high court is an appeals bench and typically does not take the original case before it is heard and decided at a lower level, he noted.

He repeatedly stressed that the attorney general is not trying to slow down the appeal.

“We have the same concern as everyone else to achieve a quick decision,” Pharris said. “We are committed to all reasonable expediting. Our assumption is that it will soon be back in this court.”

He said a detour to Superior Court probably would take about two months.

Nancy Day, the Seattle lawyer representing the challengers, said time is of the essence and the Supreme Court should take the case. With the new campaign cycle already under way, the law already is having “a chilling effect” on the ability of incumbents to exercise their First Amendment rights and begin campaign plans, she said.

The ultimate questions will be squarely before the court, so “why not do it now?” she told Crooks.

“My inclination is that there is not a whole lot to be gained by sending it to the superior court,” Crooks told the lawyers, later adding, “The question is how fast the issue can get here.”

He said it’s likely the justices will be able to hear the case in the fall term.