Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News


TERM LIMITS CASE: CHALLENGE GETS RASH OF QUERIES

Legislative lawyer faces nothing but questions from justices



Photos by Brad Horn/Special to the Review-Journal










CARSON CITY -- Supreme Court justices and candidates' attorneys challenged arguments Monday by a legislative lawyer who said voters didn't understand what they were doing when they passed a constitutional amendment in 1994 and again in 1996 limiting the terms of officeholders to 12 years.

Legislative lawyer Kevin Powers argued that the ballot proposal did not specifically state that even those who serve on the Mosquito and Weed Abatement District and East Fork Swimming Pool Board in Douglas County are limited to 12 years in their office.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Penthouse wants piece of the Strip
  • RAMPAGE ENDS IN SUICIDE: Man runs amok in Las Vegas
  • ROBBERY-HOMICIDE CASE: Juror sent flirtatious messages
  • Father mourns his daughter
  • NORM: 'Joe the Plumber' too booked for LV
  • Judge asks court to release son arrested after crash that killed girl
  • NORM: Strip club owners, 'Vinny' part ways
  • Anger over cuts reaches fever pitch
  • Working beneath Lake Las Vegas
  • DISCIPLINE COMMISSION: Halverson removed from bench



  • "I am interested in ensuring the integrity of the process," Powers said.

    Las Vegas lawyer Dominic Gentile argued Powers should have hired a pollster to support his point about voters failing to understand.

    "He should have crafted a survey to measure whether we had dummies as voters in 1994 and 1996," Gentile said.

    "People in 1994 and 1996 said we want to put an end to this dynasty," continued the attorney, who is representing Steve Sisolak, a candidate for the Clark County Commission seat held by Bruce Woodbury.

    Justices did not make an immediate decision in the case. But virtually every question they asked Powers, the only lawyer arguing that term limits were unconstitutional, challenged his reasoning.

    "Why did the Legislature wait 12 years to bring this up?" Justice Jim Hardesty asked.

    If legislators were concerned that the issue was placed on the ballot in an improper manner, Hardesty said, they should have brought it up before the measure received voters' approval.

    Powers argued that an "immediate disruption" of the Legislature will result if justices keep term limits and decide 13 veteran legislators are ineligible to run for re-election this year.

    "Their experience is invaluable," said Powers of legislators such as Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, who could become ineligible to seek re-election.

    But Justice Michael Douglas noted Buckley herself decided not to challenge the constitutionality of term limits. She did not appear in court Monday.

    Douglas added it was the "prerogative of the people" to limit politicians' service in office.

    Seventy percent of voters approved the measure in 1994, and 54 percent in 1996.

    Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said justices would do a "disservice to the voters" if they decided now, 12 years after term limits received final approval, to suddenly declare they are unconstitutional.

    "You should respect their vote," added Masto, arguing before the court for the first time since she was elected attorney general in 2006.

    Powers appeared in court at the request of Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno.

    He serves as chairman of the Legislative Commission, the group of 12 legislators who make non-financial legislative decisions when the entire Legislature is not in session.

    Townsend, who attended the hearing, said in an interview that it was important for the Supreme Court to make a decision to put the issue to rest once and for all.

    Chief Justice Mark Gibbons opened the hearing by emphasizing Powers had the "burden of proof" to show the term limits question was not properly placed on the ballot in the 1990s.

    Powers argued that the term limits issue was approved by voters in 1994 but when it was submitted for a second required vote its wording was revised to exclude judges, and that violated a requirement for consecutive votes on issues phrased "in the same manner."

    Gibbons would not predict when the court will rule, but said its decision will take longer if there are conflicting opinions by individual justices.

    At the same time it decides the constitutionality question, the court will decide whether 20 state and local officeholders -- including Woodbury -- elected or re-elected in 1996 are eligible to run for re-election this year.

    They also will decide whether Buckley, a legislator for 14 years, can seek another term in the fall.

    The argument in support of the lawmakers elected or re-elected in 1996 is that their terms began the day after that election while the term limits amendment also approved that year didn't take effect until an official vote canvass a few weeks later.

    If the court rules that Buckley cannot run again, then 12 other legislators up for re-election also could have their names stricken from election ballots.

    It already is too late for ballots for the Aug. 12 primary to be changed even if the court makes a quick decision. Early voting begins July 26 and absentee ballots already have been mailed out to voters in the military.

    Fifteen states have established term limits. In six other states, however, term limits have been repealed, including four states where courts found they were unconstitutional.

    Another Las Vegas lawyer, Georlen Spangler called Powers's assertion that people did not understand the term limits question an "affront to the people of the state."

    "I am not stupid," said Spangler, who represented Kevin Child, a Republican who is running for Buckley's District 8 seat. "I know what I voted for."

    If a new, properly written term limits question that reflected the "true will" of voters was approved, then Powers said the Legislature would not object.

    But Spangler pointed out that term limits would not begin before 2024 if supporters had to draw up a new question, secure voter approval twice and wait 12 years for the measure to go into effect.

    Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.



    Leave Your Comment 32 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    endrun wrote on July 16, 2008 09:36 AM: Dave:

    DUH!!!


    Dave wrote on July 15, 2008 10:40 PM: Wow, I believe in term limits. I voted for them. But that being said, not having term limits isn't the reason we have garbage politicans. Its because we the people continue to re-elect them. No one else is to blame.


    UNLVStud wrote on July 15, 2008 07:19 PM: If the Court upholds (which they Constitutionally shouldn't) the Term Limits Amendment, another initiative should be proposed to ban lobbyists from the Legislature, Boards, and Commissions. That way our representatives won't be bullied into bending to the Casino industry or the teacher's union. The Legislature, Boards and Commissions would finally be a fair, deliberative bodies based on feedback and input solely from their constituents.


    endrun wrote on July 15, 2008 05:19 PM: Phil

    Have you ever dealt with the Supremes? They ignor both the state constitution and the federal constitution at will on a regular basis.

    They make decisions to fit the need at the time depite the law.


    SPM wrote on July 15, 2008 04:36 PM: Term limits would not be necessary if the districts were simple rectangles or squares. Districts are drawn so as to create an area that contains voters that would likely vote for the incumbents who have direct input in the drawing of the districts. This is what creates the dynasty condition, term limits are the only way the public can respond because the public does not get to draw the districts. All districts should have only straight lines consisting of a maximum of four sides.


    Phil wrote on July 15, 2008 02:21 PM: The State Constitution requires an identical ballot measure be passed twice to become law. The failure of our Supreme Court to understand the State Constitution 12 years ago does not provide the basis for the current Court to ignore the State's Constitution in deciding the currently pending term limit case.


    Geezelouise wrote on July 15, 2008 02:09 PM: Hey, Kevin Powers, I knew exactly what I was voting for.

    Politics was never meant to be a profession. It was meant that ordinary everyday people served their government for 4 years, and then went back to their lives.

    If electing an ordinary citizen of this country will cripple the legislature, than maybe the legislature needs an overhaul.

    It is supposed to be a country governed by the people, for the people.

    Just try getting one of these elected officials to return your phone call or email. They only need us during election time and the rest of the time they can't be bothered to speak to us.


    politk wrote on July 15, 2008 01:46 PM: Unamed Politician,

    Comic relief, Numb nuts?

    You go boy!!!


    Steve wrote on July 15, 2008 01:16 PM: In case you haven't noticed, the Justices have left themselves a way out. They will say that the term limits are OK, BUT, they didn't go into effect until after these crooks took office so they all get at least another term. During that term, they can work on a way out of the term limits "problem".


    Unamed Politician wrote on July 15, 2008 12:41 PM: You people are so dumb.
    We will do as we please and there's nothing you all can do about it.
    When we beat this rap and we will,we'll make sure it can't come up again.See ya,suckers!


    Read All Comments