NLV Resident wrote on April 14, 2008 11:29 PM: Term limits is the voters' way to absolve any responsibility for their votes. If voters truly wanted to rid an incumbent, all it takes is -- well, to vote. Instead, by invoking term limits, the voters don't need to educate themselves about candidates, their stand on certain issues, or voting. Instead, they simply wait out the imposed time frame for the incumbent to be constitutionally prohibited from being re-elected. And, as for the derision of "institutional memories," as a former employee of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, I can tell you that special interests often reintroduce legislation session after session hoping to impress "freshmen" legislators. It was only through the memory of seasoned legislators who brought up testimony from prior sessions that prevented many of these bills from being passed. So, yes, term limits will, in fact, benefit special interest groups and there were many comments in the halls of the Legislative Building from lobbyists who were waiting with gleeful anticipation for term limits to become effective.

Vegas Vic wrote on April 13, 2008 05:21 PM: It makes no difference WHAT party the incumbent is in. ALL governmental offices need to have term limits including the U.S. Congress. The term limits have to be strict enough to prevent any and all "career" politicians from rerunning at any time after their specified term expires. 6 years is plenty of time to "make their mark" in the political arena and if they can't, they don't deserve to be there in the first place.

endrun wrote on April 13, 2008 04:37 PM: middleroader12
Okay counselor whats your point?

The state's in shambles, its way upside down financially, and there is little to show for it.

Education is in crisis, corruption at epidemic, things are amuck, and collectively, we are affected by it.

The general public/voters/taxpayers need to take control of the state.

Other places are messed up as well i.e. Washington, but Nevada as a state under the collective leadership of elected officials ranks highest or lowest (depending on which end is the bottom of the barrel) thanks to the elected officials, agencies, judicial, and vermin running this hell hole.

Nevertheless there's more citizens and voters than there are of them and we need to know who we are voting for and what special interests are connected and take the control away from status quo.

Solutions..not rhetoric!!!

middleroader12 wrote on April 13, 2008 01:48 PM: For all of you who think that term limits infringes on your right to have whomever you elect represent you, that argument might hold water if YOUR representative ONLY made decisions that affected ONLY YOU. The fact is that all elected representatives vote on issues that affect me and that spend my tax money, but I only get to have say-so in electing ONE of those involved in the decisions. The buddy-buddy system between elected representatives that then follows (not just with the special interest lobbyists, but the go-along to get-along, you vote for my project/I'll vote for yours mentality) is what has driven us trillions of dollars in debt and puts our elected representatives in the mindset that they are the kings and we are the mere subjects, unable to really think for ourselves. Nowhere is this more pervasive than the Inside the Beltway Mentality of Washington, D.C.

The most important aspect of term limits is that it LIMITS the amount of time leading to the inevitable king/subject thought process, with Harry Reid as Exhibit 1. While we might miss the talents of Honorable Buckley and Titus, term limits is the only way for our government to remain of/by/for the people, not life-long professional politicians.

anonymous wrote on April 13, 2008 01:19 PM: Nevada voters have been raped by elected officials. It shows everywhere. Corruption and special interests is out of control.

This scenario is playing out as 'us against them'

The situation is way wrong when elected officials team up against the voters and taxpayers that put them there.

This is sick and should infuriate the public in this election year beyond just the polls.

Its pathetic that the public has to draw a line against elected officials to protect the interests of the people of Nevada.

SO BE IT!!!

nvkorruption wrote on April 13, 2008 12:34 PM: There is no way Nevada citizens and voters should permit officials to change the term limits. The move is self serving and in defiance of the best interest of the people of Nevada.

Even thinking about supporting such a thing should be a signal to remove officials; particularly in the present climate tainted with corruption and conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court is corrupt and will overturn the will of the voters in a heartbeat in the name of special interests.

Public AND political corruption folks!!!

The people of Nevada need to stand up against this and put an end to the public corruption in our state.

Democrat wrote on April 13, 2008 11:41 AM: This is not the work of the Democrats. This is the work of HARRY REID. I am a Democrat I find Harry Reid the most disgusting politician on the face of the earth.

The sooner Nevadans rid themselves of Harry Reid and his minions the sooner this state will be able to be cleaned up. If Reid's name is on it or if it can be traced to him, I vote against it.

If King Harry wants to rule something I have a few suggestions. The FLDS is looking for a new leader. Fidel Castro just stepped aside maybe his brother would step aside for King Harry. Reid is most qualified for both positions.

I hope the voters wake up to what has happened in this state and who is behind it.

Dave L wrote on April 13, 2008 10:34 AM: Miller will rule that when the Nevada Supreme Court split the term limit question that it then became unconstitutional? Miller acting on that believe, now THAT would be unconstitutional! But he will issue an AGO and then election officials will be torn: Do they obey Miller's fiat law, or do they obey the Nevada Supreme Court? They better obey the Supreme Court if they don't want to be removed from office for misfeasence! Yep, a bench decision from a judge and POOF, they could themselves be removed from office....remember, ya'll swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?

The Court is the Supreme arbiter of law in Nevada and as such their decision and action could not, by definition, be unconstitutional. Their decsions are infalliable.

Hubris, pure hubris! Off with their heads!

tim wrote on April 13, 2008 09:10 AM: willard the districts are fixed to ensure re-election, but im sure you already know that. just because you want someone in office for fifty years does not mean the majority of the people do and term limits is the only way. those people are supposed to work for us and the majority of nv.voted twice,yes twice overwhelmingly to enforce it.like you said the majority wants it.

Willard Roker wrote on April 13, 2008 08:17 AM: I agree executive positions should have term limits. That said, what right does anyone have to tell me who I can have represent me? If the majority of a district wants candidate X to represent them for 50 years they should have that right.

Term limits do nothing but infringe on people's right to be represented by whomever they wish.

Read All Comments