Term-limited lawmakers intent on staying in the Capitol have the most feared senator in the building working on their behalf, while a group of term limit supporters is eager to apply public pressure to usher them out.

Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha said Friday he has an attorney crafting a lawsuit designed to overturn the state’s term limit law in time to keep 20 of the 49 state senators from having to leave after next year.

He declined to explain the legal strategy, but said “time is of the essence” and expects a lawsuit to be filed soon.

Chambers has served 35 years, more than any other senator, but is not among the first wave of senators scheduled to leave the Capitol in 2006.

Should term limits withstand his and other court challenges, he will leave in 2008.

Some of the 20 senators announced this week they plan to fight term limits in the courts. Sen. Dennis Byars of Beatrice was the first, saying Wednesday he plans to file for re-election next week.

When the secretary of state rejects his filing, Byars will appeal to the state Supreme Court on the grounds his constitutional rights are being violated.

Secretary of State John Gale expects more senators to do the same; Lincoln Sen. Marian Price said Thursday she might follow Byars’ lead.

“Anybody who wants to join can,” Byars said Friday.

His decision to challenge the law was finalized Wednesday, Byars said, and he didn’t consult other senators first.

“(Constituents) just kept telling me ‘Dennie, can’t we do something?’” Byars said.

Like Chambers, Byars declined to detail his legal strategy but said it will hinge on arguments the law violates the First and 14th amendments. Should the state Supreme Court agree and overturn the law, it would not be the first time a state high court has done so.

Legislative term limits have been ruled unconstitutional in four states: Oregon, Massachusetts, Wyoming and Washington.

It appears unlikely, however, that the legal justifications for overturning them would have direct applications to a potential Nebraska case.

In Massachusetts, Wyoming and Washington, courts deemed it impermissible for term limits to be attached to elected offices through citizen-approved additions to state statutes, according to the national Conference of State Legislatures.

In Oregon, term limits were approved in the form of a constitutional amendment, not state statute — but the court said the amendment violated a rule that limits to one the number of constitutional sections that can be added through each ballot question.

Voters approved Nebraska’s provision in the form of a constitutional amendment in 2000. It only pertains to state legislators, who are limited to no more than two consecutive terms.

A term limits supporter said the manner in which they are being challenged, not the fact they are, is a surprise.

“We knew something was coming, but had no forewarning Byars was going to file this lawsuit,” said Doug Kagan, chairman of Don’t Touch Term Limits.

The group will rely on advice from a national organization to wage a public relations campaign against Byars and others who may challenge term limits.

One possible strategy: Publicizing the percentage of voters who favored term limits in 2000, targeting districts represented by Byars and other senators who openly challenge the law.

“If the vote total shows voters in those areas favored term limits,” Kagan said, “we’ll want to mobilize people to chastise those senators.”

Reach Nate Jenkins at 473-7223 or njenkins@journalstar.com.

Term limits timeline

1992: Voters pass constitutional amendment limiting legislators and statewide officials to two consecutive terms, U.S. representatives to four consecutive terms and U.S. senators to two consecutive terms.

1994: Nebraska Supreme Court throws out the initiative on the grounds not enough signatures were submitted to properly place the initiative on the 1992 ballot.

1994: Voters pass constitutional amendment limiting legislators and statewide officials to two consecutive terms, certain local officials and U.S. representatives to three consecutive terms, and U.S. senators to two consecutive terms.

1995: Part of 1994 measure rendered unconstitutional when U.S. Supreme Court rules states can’t limit congressional terms.

1996: Nebraska Supreme Court voids entire measure.

1996: Voters approve constitutional amendment containing so-called scarlet letter law, requiring lawmakers to support term limits or have the words "DISREGARDED VOTERS INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" placed next to their name on the next ballot.

1997: U.S. Supreme Court  declines to review Arkansas Supreme Court ruling that that state’s scarlet letter law is unconstitutional, meaning all such laws are unconstitutional.

1998: Term limits for different offices, including state legislators, don’t make it on ballot because of passage of a referendum requiring initiative measures to contain only one subject per initiative.

2000: 56 percent of voters approve constitutional amendment imposing limit of no more than two consecutive terms for state legislators.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures