Washington — Initiative 670 (1996)
Overview
Washington voters considered Initiative Measure 670 at the November 5, 1996 general election.
The voter-initiated statute, formally titled the Term Limits Act of 1996, proposed a state-authored ballot-instruction architecture directed toward a specified federal Congressional Term Limits Amendment.
The specified amendment established a three-term Eligibility Boundary for the United States House of Representatives and a two-term Eligibility Boundary for the United States Senate. Upon ratification, a person who had previously held or then held a House seat could serve no more than two additional House terms; a person who had previously held or then held a Senate seat could serve no more than one additional Senate term. The amendment imposed no ratification deadline and specified ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Initiative 670 directed Washington officials toward both Article V proposal pathways. Washington’s Members of Congress were instructed to use their delegated powers to pass the specified amendment. Members of the Washington Legislature were instructed to advance a prescribed Article V application asking Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution and, if the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment were later proposed, to support its ratification.
Around those instruments, the proposal prescribed separate conduct schedules for Washington’s congressional delegation and state legislators, a Term Limits Pledge for nonincumbent candidates, Secretary of State determinations, Washington Supreme Court review, state-authored ballot designations, and stage-specific exit conditions.
The proposed governing sequence was:
specified federal amendment → voter instruction or candidate pledge → prescribed conduct or pledge response → Secretary of State determination → judicial review where invoked → state-authored ballot designation
The prescribed incumbent designation was:
“DISREGARDED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS”
The prescribed nonincumbent designation was:
“DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS”
Initiative 670 therefore proposed a:
Ballot-Instruction Mechanism
Indirect · State-Authored · Office-Specific
Washington voters rejected the proposal:
For: 937,873 — 44.99%
Against: 1,146,865 — 55.01%
The rejection ended Initiative 670 at the electoral-authorization stage. Its specified amendment, Article V instructions, conduct schedules, candidate pledge, administrative determinations, judicial-review provisions, ballot designations, and regulatory exit provisions remained proposed and never became operative.
Jurisdiction and Scope
Jurisdiction: Washington
Measure: Initiative Measure 670 (1996)
Formal title: Term Limits Act of 1996
Form: Voter-initiated statute
Proposed statutory placement: Sections 1–9 as a new chapter in Title 44 RCW
Election date: November 5, 1996
Electoral outcome: Rejected
Federal offices implicated: United States House of Representatives; United States Senate
State offices implicated: Washington House of Representatives; Washington Senate
Proposed administrative authority: Washington Secretary of State
Proposed judicial-review authority: Washington Supreme Court
Institutional object: Advancement of a specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment through congressional proposal, a prescribed state-legislative Article V Convention application, and potential Washington legislative ratification if the specified amendment were submitted to the states
Proposed electoral output: State-authored ballot designations tied to prescribed legislative conduct or a nonincumbent candidate’s response to the Term Limits Pledge
Initiative 670 addressed three constitutionally assigned Article V functions through actor-specific instructions: congressional proposal of the specified amendment, a Washington Legislature application for a Convention, and potential Washington legislative ratification if the amendment were later submitted to the states.
The proposed state system connected those instructions to prescribed conduct, candidate pledges, Secretary of State determinations, ballot designations, and expedited Washington Supreme Court review.
Washington voters rejected Initiative 670 before the proposed statutory and electoral machinery became operative.
Architecture and Classification
Initiative 670 proposed a state-administered ballot-instruction architecture organized around advancement of a specified federal Congressional Term Limits Amendment.
Ballot-Instruction Mechanism
Indirect · State-Authored · Office-Specific
Status: Proposed · Rejected
Article V supplied the constitutional functions. Initiative 670 prescribed conduct for Washington officials occupying the institutions assigned those functions.
For Washington’s Members of Congress:
specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment → congressional proposal activity
For members of the Washington Legislature:
prescribed Article V application → state-legislative Convention-application activity
If the specified amendment were later submitted to the states:
submitted Congressional Term Limits Amendment → Washington legislative ratification activity
The electoral-accountability architecture then applied separate pathways to incumbent and nonincumbent candidates.
For incumbents:
prescribed official conduct → Secretary of State determination → judicial review where invoked → state-authored ballot designation
For nonincumbents:
prescribed Term Limits Pledge → pledge response → Secretary of State determination → judicial review where invoked → state-authored ballot designation
The state supplied the conduct criteria, administrative determination, prescribed ballot language, and review process. The proposed three-term House and two-term Senate Eligibility Boundaries remained dependent upon amendment of the United States Constitution.
Washington voters rejected Initiative 670 before the proposed architecture became operative.
Specified Amendment and Transition Architecture
Section 1 supplied the federal constitutional amendment that Initiative 670 instructed Washington officials to advance.
The measure introduced it as the:
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT
The prescribed amendment stated:
Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of United States Representative for more than three terms, but upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held the office of United States Representative or who then holds the office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
Section 2. No person shall serve in the office of United States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held the office of United States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve for more than one additional term.
Section 3. This article shall have no time limit within which it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states.
Eligibility Architecture
Regime: Endpoint System
Mechanism: Lifetime Exhaustion
House Eligibility Boundary: Three terms
Senate Eligibility Boundary: Two terms
The amendment used ratification as the transition boundary while preserving a defined quantity of additional service for persons who had previously held or then held congressional office.
For the House:
prior or current House service at ratification → eligibility for no more than two additional House terms
For the Senate:
prior or current Senate service at ratification → eligibility for no more than one additional Senate term
Section 3 left the ratification period open-ended and specified ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
The specified amendment therefore supplied both the proposed federal Eligibility Architecture and the substantive standard against which Initiative 670 prescribed congressional and state-legislative conduct.
Prescribed Article V Application
Section 4 prescribed the Article V application that Initiative 670 instructed members of the Washington House of Representatives and Senate to advance.
The application stated:
“We, the people and legislature of the State of Washington, due to our desire to establish term limits on Congress, hereby make application to Congress, pursuant to our power under Article V of the United States Constitution, to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.”
The prescribed text identified congressional term limits as Washington’s purpose while using the broader constitutional formulation “a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.”
Section 4 separately instructed Washington legislators to use all delegated powers to pass the prescribed application and to ratify the Congressional Term Limits Amendment specified in Section 1 if that amendment were later proposed.
The two state-legislative stages were therefore:
prescribed Article V application → Washington legislative advancement of the Convention application
and, conditionally:
proposal and submission of the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment → Washington legislative ratification activity
The Convention-application and ratification stages depended upon separate Article V events and remained institutionally distinct.
Prescribed Legislative Conduct
Initiative 670 connected its instructions to separate conduct schedules for Washington’s congressional delegation and members of the Washington Legislature.
Washington’s Members of Congress
Section 2 instructed each member of Washington’s congressional delegation to use all delegated powers to advance the Congressional Term Limits Amendment specified in Section 1.
Eight conduct criteria governed congressional activity. The incumbent ballot designation would apply to a United States Representative or Senator who:
failed to vote for the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment when brought to a vote;
failed to second the amendment when a second was required and otherwise unavailable;
failed to propose or otherwise bring the amendment before the full chamber when another legislator had not done so;
failed to support procedural votes advancing the amendment through a committee or subcommittee on which the member served;
failed to oppose delay, tabling, or other action preventing a full-chamber vote;
failed to vote against a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits longer than those contained in the specified amendment;
sponsored or cosponsored a constitutional amendment or law proposing congressional term limits longer than those contained in the specified amendment; or
failed to ensure that votes concerning the specified amendment were recorded and made available to the public.
The congressional conduct schedule therefore reached substantive voting, proposal activity, committee procedure, floor access, delay, competing term-limit designs, sponsorship, and public recording of votes.
Washington Legislature
Section 4 instructed each member of the Washington House of Representatives and Senate to use all delegated powers to advance the prescribed Article V application and, if the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment were later submitted to the states, to support its ratification.
Nine conduct criteria governed state-legislative activity. The incumbent ballot designation would apply to a state representative or senator who:
failed to vote for the prescribed Article V application when brought to a vote;
failed to second the application when a second was required;
failed to support procedural votes advancing the application through a committee or subcommittee on which the legislator served;
failed to propose or otherwise bring the application before the full legislative body when another legislator had not done so;
failed to oppose delay, tabling, or other action preventing a full-body vote on the application;
failed to ensure that votes on the application were recorded and made available to the public;
failed to oppose any change, addition, or modification to the prescribed application;
failed to vote for the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment if it were submitted to the states for ratification; or
failed to vote against another congressional term-limit amendment containing longer limits if such an amendment were submitted to the states for ratification.
The state-legislative conduct schedule therefore covered advancement and preservation of the prescribed Convention application and, at a later conditional stage, ratification activity concerning a submitted congressional term-limit amendment.
The two conduct pathways were:
specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment → congressional conduct → state-administered accountability
prescribed Article V application and potential later ratification → Washington legislative conduct → state-administered accountability
The conduct schedules supplied the substantive criteria later used by the Secretary of State in determining whether the incumbent ballot designation would apply.
Stage-Specific Release Conditions
Initiative 670 tied its ballot-designation provisions to the constitutional-maintenance work each provision addressed.
Washington’s Members of Congress
The congressional-incumbent designation would cease once either of two events occurred:
the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment was before the states for ratification; or
the specified amendment had become part of the United States Constitution.
The congressional release condition was therefore:
specified amendment before states for ratification or incorporated into U.S. Constitution → congressional-incumbent designation ceases
Washington Legislature — Convention Application
For conduct governing advancement and preservation of the prescribed Article V application, the state-legislative designation would cease once:
Washington had made the prescribed application and the application remained unwithdrawn; or
the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment had been submitted to the states for ratification.
The Convention-application release sequence was:
Washington makes prescribed Article V application + application remains unwithdrawn, or specified amendment reaches ratification stage → Convention-application designation criteria cease
Washington Legislature — Ratification
For conduct governing ratification, the state-legislative designation would cease once Washington had ratified the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment.
All state-legislative designations would cease once the specified amendment became part of the United States Constitution.
The ratification release sequence was:
Washington ratifies specified amendment → ratification-related designation criteria cease
Nonincumbent Candidates
The Term Limits Pledge continued until a constitutional amendment limiting service to no more than three House terms and two Senate terms became part of the United States Constitution.
System-Wide Expiration
Section 6 supplied the final statutory endpoint. Once the Congressional Term Limits Amendment specified in Section 1 became part of the United States Constitution, the entire proposed chapter would automatically expire.
The complete duration architecture therefore linked separate ballot consequences to successive constitutional-maintenance stages and linked expiration of the broader statutory mechanism to completion of the federal amendment objective.
Candidate Pledge and Ballot Designations
Initiative 670 prescribed separate ballot treatment for incumbents and nonincumbent candidates for the United States Congress and Washington Legislature.
Incumbent Designation
Sections 2 and 4 required the following information to appear adjacent to an incumbent candidate’s name when the applicable conduct criteria were satisfied:
“DISREGARDED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS”
The designation applied on primary and general-election ballots.
For Members of Congress, the governing conduct concerned advancement of the Congressional Term Limits Amendment specified in Section 1.
For Washington legislators, the governing conduct concerned advancement and preservation of the prescribed Article V application and potential later ratification of the specified amendment.
Nonincumbent Term Limits Pledge
Section 3 required nonincumbent candidates for United States Senator, United States Representative, the Washington House of Representatives, and the Washington Senate to be offered a “Term Limits Pledge” each time they filed for office.
The prescribed pledge stated:
“I support term limits and pledge to use all my legislative powers to enact the proposed constitutional amendment set forth in the Term Limits Act of 1996. If elected, I pledge to vote in such a way that the designation “DISREGARDED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS” will not appear adjacent to my name.
_____________________________”
Signature of Candidate
A candidate declining the pledge would receive:
“DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS”
The designation would appear adjacent to the candidate’s name on every primary and general-election ballot.
The pledge continued to be offered until a constitutional amendment limiting United States Senators to no more than two terms and United States Representatives to no more than three terms became part of the United States Constitution.
The proposed ballot interface therefore used two state-authored judgments:
incumbent conduct → “DISREGARDED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS”
nonincumbent refusal of prescribed pledge → “DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS”
Administration, Judicial Review, and Severability
Section 5 assigned the Washington Secretary of State responsibility for determining whether either prescribed ballot designation would appear beside a candidate’s name.
Secretary of State Determinations
Before making a determination, the Secretary of State was required to consider timely submitted public comments and was permitted to rely on those comments and information submitted by candidates.
For incumbent Members of Congress, the determination was to be made early enough to permit orderly printing of primary and general-election ballots and completion of the prescribed judicial-review process. The evaluation covered conduct during the member’s current term and qualifying conduct from a concluded term occurring after the previous election-cycle determination.
For incumbent Washington legislators, the determination was due no later than 30 days after the end of the regular session following each general election. The evaluation covered legislative action during the preceding regular session and qualifying conduct from a concluded term occurring after the previous determination.
The Secretary of State was prohibited from considering conduct by a state or federal legislator occurring before enactment of Initiative 670.
For nonincumbent candidates, the determination was due no later than five business days after the filing deadline.
The administrative sequence was:
prescribed conduct or pledge response → public-comment and candidate-information record → Secretary of State determination → judicial review where invoked → ballot designation
Washington Supreme Court Review
When the Secretary of State determined that a designation would not appear, any elector could seek review. An elector invoking review was required to appeal to the Washington Supreme Court as an original action within five business days or waive the right to appeal.
In that proceeding, the Secretary of State bore the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the candidate had satisfied the requirements supporting omission of the designation.
When the Secretary of State determined that a designation would appear, the candidate could seek review. A candidate invoking review was required to appeal to the Washington Supreme Court as an original action within five business days or waive the right to appeal.
In that proceeding, the candidate bore the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the designation should be omitted.
For an appeal from omission, the Supreme Court was required to issue its decision within 60 days.
For an appeal from inclusion, the Court was required to issue its decision no later than 61 days before the election.
Challenge to the Statutory Mechanism
Section 7 separately provided that any legal challenge to the proposed chapter would be filed as an original action before the Washington Supreme Court.
This created two distinct judicial-review routes:
candidate-specific designation dispute → expedited Washington Supreme Court review
challenge to the proposed chapter → original action before the Washington Supreme Court
Severability
Section 9 supplied a severability rule. If any provision of the act or its application to a person or circumstance were held invalid, the remainder of the act and application of the provision to other persons or circumstances would remain unaffected.
Because Washington voters rejected Initiative 670, no Secretary of State determination, designation appeal, chapter-wide legal challenge, or severability question arose under these provisions.
Electoral Outcome
Washington voters considered Initiative Measure 670 at the November 5, 1996 general election.
The Washington Secretary of State identifies the measure in its historical initiative record as:
Ballot Notices / Term Limits
Statewide Result
For: 937,873 — 44.99%
Against: 1,146,865 — 55.01%
Outcome: Rejected
The statewide vote supplied one electoral disposition for the complete proposed statutory architecture.
Initiative 670 presented the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment, Article V instructions, legislative-conduct schedules, candidate pledge, ballot designations, Secretary of State administration, Washington Supreme Court review, stage-specific release conditions, automatic expiration, and severability as components of a single proposal.
The electoral sequence was:
initiative qualification → statewide vote → rejection
The rejection withheld authorization for the proposed Washington statutory architecture. No provision of Initiative 670 became operative.
Constitutional Position
Initiative 670 ended at the electoral-authorization stage when Washington voters rejected it on November 5, 1996. The proposed chapter therefore never entered Title 44 RCW, and its instruction, pledge, administrative, judicial-review, ballot-designation, release, expiration, and severability provisions remained proposed architecture.
Preceding Washington Architecture
Washington voters had approved Initiative 573 in 1992. That statute imposed service-based ballot-access restrictions on candidates for Congress together with term-limit provisions for specified state offices.
The congressional provisions encountered federal judicial review before Initiative 670 reached the ballot.
In Thorsted v. Gregoire (1994), the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held Initiative 573’s congressional ballot-access restrictions unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that federal disposition in Thorsted v. Munro (1996).
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) meanwhile established the nationwide federal qualifications boundary governing state-created qualifications for membership in Congress.
Initiative 670 then placed Washington’s congressional term-limit objective within a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution and organized state action around the Article V institutions responsible for congressional proposal, Convention application, and potential ratification.
The Washington sequence was:
1992 state congressional ballot-access restrictions → 1994 federal invalidation → 1995 Thornton qualifications boundary → 1996 proposed federal-amendment instruction architecture
Later Federal Ballot-Designation Boundary
In Cook v. Gralike (2001), the United States Supreme Court addressed Missouri’s enacted system of state-authored congressional ballot designations and held that the challenged labels exceeded state authority under the Elections Clause.
Initiative 670 had already ended through voter rejection. Cook therefore supplies later federal constitutional authority relevant to the type of congressional ballot information Washington proposed while leaving Initiative 670 itself as an unimplemented design.
Later Washington Term-Limit Adjudication
In Gerberding v. Munro (1998), the Washington Supreme Court addressed Initiative 573’s remaining state-office restrictions and held that those statutory provisions imposed additional qualifications for state constitutional offices.
That decision concerning Initiative 573 completes the broader Washington sequence by supplying the later disposition of the state-office branch of the earlier 1992 architecture.
Structural Significance
Washington Initiative 670 makes a change in constitutional pathway observable within a single jurisdiction after direct congressional ballot-access regulation encountered federal judicial foreclosure.
Federal Amendment as the Eligibility Architecture
Initiative 573 had placed service-based congressional ballot restrictions within Washington election law. Initiative 670 instead located the proposed three-term House and two-term Senate Eligibility Boundaries in an amendment to the United States Constitution and organized Washington’s proposed role around advancement of that amendment.
The sequence was:
state congressional ballot-access regulation → federal qualifications boundary → federal amendment objective supported by state constitutional-maintenance machinery
Washington’s own federal litigation over Initiative 573 preceded Initiative 670 and supplied an immediate institutional setting for that change in mechanism.
A Specified Amendment as the Conduct Standard
Initiative 670 supplied the exact federal amendment against which congressional and state-legislative conduct would be evaluated.
Its substantive standard included:
a three-term House Eligibility Boundary;
a two-term Senate Eligibility Boundary;
eligibility for no more than two additional House terms for persons who had previously held or then held House office at ratification;
eligibility for no more than one additional Senate term for persons who had previously held or then held Senate office at ratification;
an open-ended ratification period; and
ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
The proposed ballot-accountability system therefore rested on a defined constitutional objective specifying duration, transition, and ratification architecture.
Article V Functions and Stage-Specific Accountability
Initiative 670 directed officials toward three constitutionally assigned Article V functions: congressional proposal, state-legislative Convention application, and potential state ratification.
Each stage carried actor-specific conduct criteria and its own regulatory endpoint. Completion of the prescribed Convention application released one group of state-legislative criteria; submission or ratification of the specified amendment released others; incorporation of the amendment into the United States Constitution triggered expiration of the broader statutory system.
The architecture therefore tied continuing state electoral accountability to completion of defined constitutional-maintenance tasks.
Electoral Disposition
Washington voters rejected the complete architecture before implementation.
The record consequently preserves a fully specified statutory design and a statewide electoral judgment on that integrated proposal while supplying no administrative operation under Initiative 670.
Sources
State Sources
Washington Secretary of State — Certified Text of Initiative Measure 670
Certified proposed statutory text. Primary source for the specified Congressional Term Limits Amendment, prescribed Article V application, legislative-conduct criteria, Term Limits Pledge, ballot designations, Secretary of State administration, Washington Supreme Court review, release conditions, automatic expiration, and severability.
Washington Secretary of State — 1996 Washington State Voters’ Pamphlet
Official voter-facing publication containing the ballot title, explanatory material, arguments, and complete text of Initiative 670.
Washington Secretary of State — Yearly Summary of Initiatives to the People
Official historical record identifying Initiative 573 as approved in 1992 and Initiative 670 as “Ballot Notices / Term Limits” and rejected in 1996.
Washington House of Representatives — 1997 House Journal: Certification of the 1996 General Election Returns
Official canvass recording 937,873 votes for Initiative 670 and 1,146,865 votes against.
Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wn.2d 188, 949 P.2d 1366 (1998)
Washington Supreme Court decision addressing Initiative 573’s state-office restrictions and completing the judicial record of Washington’s preceding term-limit architecture.
Federal Constitutional Authority
Thorsted v. Gregoire, 841 F. Supp. 1068 (W.D. Wash. 1994)
Federal district-court decision holding Initiative 573’s congressional ballot-access restrictions unconstitutional.
Thorsted v. Munro, 75 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1996)
Ninth Circuit decision affirming the federal judgment concerning Initiative 573’s congressional provisions on the Qualifications Clauses ground established in Thornton.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
Establishes the federal constitutional boundary governing state-created qualifications for membership in Congress and supplies the national setting for Washington’s movement to a federal-amendment strategy.
Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)
Establishes the later Elections Clause boundary governing state-authored congressional ballot designations of the type proposed by Initiative 670.
Questions for Further Exploration
What constitutional objective did Initiative 670 ask Washington voters to advance through the specified three-term House and two-term Senate amendment?
How did the measure allocate responsibility among Washington’s Members of Congress, the Washington Legislature, candidates, the Secretary of State, and the Washington Supreme Court?
What did Washington voters decide when they rejected Initiative 670 as an integrated statutory proposal, and what does that result leave unresolved about its individual components?
What authority for legislative instruction, administrative judgment, judicial review, candidate pledges, and state-authored ballot information did the electorate withhold when it rejected the measure?
How did Washington’s movement from Initiative 573 to Initiative 670 change the institutional pathway for pursuing congressional term limits after federal judicial restriction of direct state ballot-access limits?
What structural role did the specified amendment’s two-additional-House-term and one-additional-Senate-term transition provisions play in defining the constitutional objective against which official conduct would be evaluated?
How did Initiative 670’s separate release conditions connect continuing ballot accountability to unfinished stages of constitutional maintenance?
What accountability questions remain when a proposed system would convert legislative conduct into state-authored electoral information but voters decline to authorize that system?
How should representation and institutional legitimacy be evaluated when voters reject the mechanism designed to instruct and publicly assess officials exercising constitutionally assigned functions?
Related Pages
→ Congressional Term Limits
Defines the federal eligibility objective that Initiative 670 sought to advance through a specified constitutional amendment and state-administered instruction architecture.→ Washington — State Legislative Term Limits
Provides the Initiative 573 architecture needed to trace Washington’s progression from the 1992 ballot-access system through federal and state judicial review.→ Congressional Ballot Instruction Phase (1996–2000)
Places Initiative 670 within the state ballot-instruction phase joining specified congressional term-limit objectives, voter instruction, candidate pledges, and state-authored ballot information.→ Worked Example — Cook v. Gralike (2001)
Carries the state-authored ballot-designation architecture forward to the later Elections Clause boundary established by the Supreme Court.→ Worked Example — Institutional Response Sequence to Congressional Term-Limit Initiatives (1990–2001)
Locates Washington’s Initiative 573–litigation–Initiative 670 sequence within the broader institutional response to congressional term-limit initiatives.
Last updated — October 2026