Battles continue over term limits.

Term limit supporters are cheering over the U.S. Supreme Court's March 23 refusal to hear a challenge to California's 1990 law. Proposition 140 sets lifetime limits of three two-year terms for Assembly members and two four-year terms for senators. Without commenting on its merits, the ruling lets stand a lower court decision that voters have the constitutional right to limit state lawmaker's terms.

Supporters also scored in Michigan this winter when a federal district court ruled that the state's term limits are not unconstitutional. The 1992 amendment to Michigan's constitution sets lifetime limits of two four-year terms for the governor, secretary of state, attorney general and Senate members, and three two-year terms for House members. The group Citizens for Legislative Choice has appealed this decision in the 6th Circuit Court.

The newest court battle is brewing in Florida, where a suit challenging the state's "Eight is Enough" law was filed in February in Leon County Circuit Court. Florida's constitutional amendment, approved by voters in 1992, limits the terms of state lawmakers and cabinet members to eight years. It takes effect in 2000, forcing 13 senators and 72 House members out of office.

The suit was filed by constituents of senators who will be termed out in 2000. They argue that limiting voters' choices on the ballot "is an unconstitutional restriction on their federal right to a meaningful vote." The lawsuit also claims that term limits discriminate against residents of rural counties, which are often represented by a single senate seat. That seat would go to an inexperienced rookie every eight years, while urban counties that have several senate seats are more likely to have at least one experienced senator in office.

The so-called "Scarlet Letter" laws took a beating in the courts this winter. Passed by voters in nine states in 1996, these laws call for the phrase "disregarded voter instruction on term limits" to be printed next to the name of any congressional representative or candidate who fails to support a term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the state's Scarlet Letter provision in January, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because it wrongly shifts legislative powers from Congress and state lawmakers to citizens.

A district court ruling in February said essentially the same thing about Missouri's Scarlet Letter law, adding that it imposes unconstitutional qualifications on candidates and violates the First Amendment right to free speech. An appeal filed by Missouri's attorney general was refused.