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

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Opinion


FROM OUR READERS: Incumbent entitlement

Amendment, electorate were clear, but pols still scheming to stay put

Here's a novel idea. Instead of fretfully scratching their heads about when Nevada's term limits may or may not kick in, why don't people simply read what the provisions say?

For a dozen years now, Nevada politicians have been obsessed with these few words in the state constitution. And at least in public, many of those pols have been indulging in industrial-strength pretence. To hear them tell it, these tiny pebbles of text are really the huge and mysterious monoliths of Easter Island.


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: If only we could tax more
  • LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?
  • J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps
  • LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes
  • LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada
  • EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform
  • EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'
  • EDITORIAL: Hoe, hoe, hoe
  • EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes
  • LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?




  • What's really transfixing the politicians, of course, is the question that grips the cobra when the mongoose is near: "Er ... is my string about to run out?"

    These are the intense energies that have fueled a Nevada cottage industry second-guessing term limits since voters added them to the state constitution in 1996.

    First off the mark, that very autumn, was then-Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa. Even before voters had passed the limits a second and final time she was slandering those provisions from the privileged platform of an official attorney general opinion. "Vague and ambiguous," she said.

    However, as former deputy attorney general Chuck Gardner demonstrated in a watershed 2001 Las Vegas Review-Journal article, the truth was the exact opposite.

    Del Papa, he also noted in passing, had a direct conflict of interest on the core issue itself when she published the opinion. Under any common-sense interpretation, the term limits amendment would have barred her from seeking another term as attorney general. That was something she wanted to do -- and would do, subsequently, in 1998.

    Del Papa told Nevadans that the limitations did not say when to start counting the terms. "But that's exactly what they do," responded Gardner. He recited the key text the amendment regularly repeated -- whether referring to legislators or other elected officials: "No person may be elected [to such office] who has served in that office, or at the expiration of his current term if he is so serving will have served, 12 years or more."

    "No ambiguity here," observed Gardner. He then turned to the constitutional-officer provisions:

    No person may be elected [as attorney general, secretary of state, controller, or treasurer] ... more than once if he has previously held the office by election or appointment.

    "No ambiguity here, either," Gardner continued. "This was precisely crafted to leave nothing to chance and was aimed squarely at someone in Del Papa's position. ...

    "But according to Del Papa, term limits for legislators would not go into effect for another 12 years, and for state officers such as herself, not for another 10 years, later. This would come as a great surprise to those who voted for the initiative or to anyone who has ever read it.

    "Del Papa argued that, since the term limit laws don't tell us what to do with incumbents, applying the 1996 term limits to an election six years later would be improperly retroactive. The notion is not only mindless and in contradiction to what we experience as the forward progression of time, but has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court for more than 70 years. Our own Nevada Supreme Court has seen through this nonsense. Exactly like the law that increases the penalty for a third domestic battery, the term limit laws take into account past events or present status, but are sought to be applied to the next event, not the last one."

    Ever since the fall of 1996, Nevada's political power mongers and their media camp-followers have pretended that the word "current," in 1994 and 1996, had no discernible meaning. Voters, however, subscribed to no such theory. They knew quite well that "current" meant current and that the new term limits applied to politicians then -- currently -- in office.

    Nevertheless, because most Nevada citizens have better things to do in life than parse the latest frauds from our busy-bee political thimble-riggers, this ruse, as a practical matter, was allowed to succeed.

    Today, as a result, Silver State scamsters beat the bushes daily for some new fraud that will allow permanent escape from the voters' best judgment.

    The nationwide movement to place term limits on elected officials was a direct response to a widely recognized problem: that today, as throughout history, self-interested corruption and systemic malfeasance ensues when human beings hold power -- with its deeply addictive and corrosive effects -- too long.

    Ultimately, what the power mongers' chicanery around the topic of term limits reveals is nothing so much as ... the need for term limits.

    Steven Miller is vice president for policy at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

    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

    Leave Your Comment 5 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:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Sad Summerlin wrote on June 15, 2008 07:06 PM: How can anyone (other than those that have the crooks in their pockets) argue against this?


    Helen Weils wrote on June 15, 2008 02:07 PM: Amen!


    tim wrote on June 15, 2008 01:16 PM: VOTE THE BUMS OUT!that's how we get our country back.they are selling us out to the highest bidder.


    Larry wrote on June 15, 2008 07:09 AM: Excellent article, Voters need to clean house.

    I will not vote for anything backed by a Reid or a Rogich. No incumbents nor, their children, spouses, inlaw etc.

    Nor, will I vote for anyone from connected law firms.

    The Nevada's dynasty needs to be dismantled.


    b wrote on June 15, 2008 05:32 AM: Very good, and very timely, article. Yep, the corrupt career politicians in there now will do anything to keep their mouth in the public trough. Just look at our fine "judges", they "exempted themselves" from the term limits. If we can only educate the voters, we can beat them at their own game, and still take back our government. All we have to do is wake up and make sure we do not return any incumbents to office. Of course they will promise you anything if you will just vote for them, never mind the fact that many of them have had years to do what they now promise, and have done nothing but enrich their own pockets at our expense. Vote out all incumbents, no more career politicians, we can and will take back our government. The worse that that has happened to us is when the Harry Reid types started using pork to buy votes, and it has gotten so out of hand, they now feel we owe tham anything they can steal