Out of Woody Jenkins' Past
Citizens for Term Limits
Open Letter to Woody Jenkins
Written before Woody’s 1996 loss of the junior Louisiana Senate seat was cemented by the Susan Haik Terrell fiasco in December 2002
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
As you know, In 1995 Louisiana became the first and only non-initiative state to limit legislative terms by constitutional amendment. It was the first break for the voter since before Huey Long. With majorities of 80% in the state Senate and 90% in the House, our amendment bill sailed through the Legislature. Citizens for Term Limits is proud to have had a role in that sea-change for Louisiana.
With the primary election only some four months away, we learned that a “no” vote on term limits in the Legislature could be political suicide. Only a few of those who ignored this compelling wisdom survived their reelection bids — and those were special cases.
The message was clear that term limitation is a powerful campaign issue. The following year, in the national election, Mr. Jenkins, you, who had been a member of that legislature, and who knew better, defied that penetrating lesson, and it cost you your bid for the U. S. Senate. The unanticipated but costly effects of this defiance are being felt by us all, even now, six years later.
We believe your actions have had devastating consequences, for the following reasons:
First — When a candidate runs for public office he has an obligation to his supporters, his organization, to his contributors and voters, as well as his party, to do his level best to win for them. But you were trying to have it both ways. You opposed term limits, as will be seen, including congressional limits. But rather than admit this, you took a different tack. You campaigned for term limits for federal judges!
Golly, Mr. Jenkins, it all sounded so great when you said it fast, but the issue was congressional term limits, and most folks knew it. You were campaigning on a phony issue, and you knew it. How regrettable.
Second —Sadly, your heart has never been with term limitation. As you and I both know, the 1995 Louisiana House of Representatives did not record floor debate — only votes. Taking advantage of this, you would speak against our term limits bill when you knew your words would evaporate, then cast your vote for it, thus keeping your record “clean,” at a time when your vote was not critical to us anyway.
Lamentably, you lost your Senate race by 5,788 votes, despite running behind your opponent by 100,000 in New Orleans, where you claimed winning votes had been stolen from you. For you to have won, you needed less than 3,000 additional votes out of 1,700,000 cast. That is less than two-tenths of 1%, or less than one vote in each of Louisiana’s 3883 precincts.
You cried foul to the Republican-controlled U. S. Senate as well as to Louisiana authorities, but were turned down in each case for lack of evidence. You could have easily won those necessary additional votes, and more, if you had run a strong and forthright campaign for congressional term limits and signed our pledge to work for term limits in the Congress — instead, you chose to stonewall us, refusing adamantly to respond to our attempts to communicate with you.
You were on the wrong side of a hugely popular issue when it made no sense and did you no good to be there.
Third — It was a reaffirmation of our case this year when New Orleans’ popular mayor, Marc Morial, failed in his campaign to amend away the term limits in that city’s charter, so Morial could continue in office. His amendment was defeated by a 60-40 margin, even after Morial had spent a million dollars to get it passed. Why is this significant? Because it proves that a term limits campaign by you in your Senate race could likely have gleaned the necessary votes right there in New Orleans, the very place where you claimed votes were stolen from you. Term limitation is more popular even than Morial, and certainly more popular than you were, Mr. Jenkins.
Term limits are overwhelmingly popular across Louisiana, where a respected Werthlin poll had shown they were supported by 86% of voters. Mr. Jenkins, bless your heart, you were trying to swim upstream against a powerful current.
Mr. Jenkins, you would be sitting in the U. S. Senate today, but for your own doublespeak. You must know this by now, Mr. Jenkins, and I’m sure it must hurt. Whoever was advising you then did you no favors. You failed to keep faith with your campaign. You attempted to conceal your antipathy for term limitation. Recent events have confirmed that you could have gained the necessary votes to win, probably just from New Orleans, not to mention the rest of the state, had you campaigned honestly for congressional term limits.
Today, less than six years later, the effect of your missteps on the Senate party alignment is obvious — and staggering. If we can assume your loyalty to the Republican party, the Republicans would still hold a one-vote majority in the Senate. Actually a two-vote majority, because Senator Jim Jeffords would then have had no motivation to change his affiliation.
The President’s senior staff appointments and second-level cabinet appointments, as well as his judicial appointments, would have been ratified by the Senate months ago, instead of being left in limbo by the elitist liberals.
And Tom Daschle would be just another unsuccessful obstructionist.
Upon seemingly unimportant matters of character can hinge changes in history, felt only years later.
“Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other.” —Viscount Morley of Blackburn
Sincerely,
Rense Johnson, Chairman
Citizens for Term Limits
Comments