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

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Jul. 10, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

ERIN NEFF: Throw out state term limits

ERIN NEFF
MORE COLUMNS

It is true that some Nevada politicians have latched onto the term limit case to save their seats or oust their opponents.

But Jon Ralston's admonishment of this practice in the "Sunsert" Wednesday fails to acknowledge the overriding issue as the state's high court prepares to hear the case next week.

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
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • Ralston is rightly a critic of term limits as a shortsighted solution to long-term problems with the elected class. But his suggestion that the will of the voters should be upheld (however misguided) is as flawed as thinking it's OK for voters to pass a poll tax in 2008. As long as it's the will of the people, it's OK?

    Ralston seemed to take the other tack back when Richard Ziser was peddling his homophobic defense of marriage act. At that time, the majority of Nevadans supported the measure to define marriage as only between a man and woman. Because the majority wanted it, Ziser said it was just.

    There was a time in our country when a majority of our fellow citizens also supported segregation.

    Someday, just as the nation's high court overturned that ugly practice, it may again denounce the type of language now embedded in Nevada's constitution about marriage as an affront to civil rights.

    Thankfully, citizens have a distinct right to petition the government and vote for change. But Ralston, in his Fourth Estate role as arbiter of fairness and good government, somehow thinks it OK to toss the U.S. Constitution just to adhere to the will of the people.

    Nevada's term limits have been flawed from the start.

    Ralston is correct that term limits for Nevada lawmakers, in particular, would only exacerbate the systemic problems we get when we pay people $3,900 a year (no, I didn't miss any zeroes) to pass meaningful policy in a rapidly growing, diverse state.

    A voter-approved petition drive is no way to enact the best policy. Just look at the unintended consequences of the recent smoking restrictions and minimum wage increase.

    For instance, anytime citizens earmark a percentage of a tax or approve a bond, they are tying the hands of policymakers to make broader financial decisions.

    California may have a spending problem, to quote Gov. Jim Gibbons, but it also has a budget problem. More than half of the Golden State's revenue sources are earmarked to specific funds voters approved.

    They're off limits to legislators or the governor.

    In Nevada, the Supreme Court -- which actually screwed up the constitutionality of the state's term limits proposal to begin with -- has three questions to answer.

    But it's the one big question that renders moot the other two: The court needs to decide whether the constitutional amendment creating term limits is constitutional.

    After the ballot initiative limiting office holders to 12 years of service in a single post passed the first time in 1994, the state Supreme Court separated the question into two initiatives, one involving the judiciary, the second dealing with other elected officials. So when voters OK'd the latter for the second time in 1996, they were approving something different. Last time I consulted the state constitution, it said amendments must pass twice in identical manner to be approved.

    How ironic that the same court which created this constitutional question is now the arbiter of the dispute.

    Let's assume the court can triangulate around the constitution. You only need look to 2003's Guinn v. Legislature for precedent.

    If somehow the court thinks term limits pass muster, it must determine when the cap on service takes effect. And which veteran lawmakers are actually subject to the ban?

    But until it solves the greater issue, the high court really doesn't need to fuss over particulars such as whether a state politician who literally took office the day after the 1996 election somehow beat the clock that supposedly started ticking few weeks later.

    Whatever the court does after hearing the arguments next Monday, it had better do it quickly.

    Saturday is the final day for voters to register for the primary without having to schlep down to the Election Department in person. And early voting begins just 12 days after the arguments will be heard.

    This is one rush to judgment that's actually been brewing for more than a decade.

    So, let the arguments commence, and let the court right a wrong. And if voters really think they can clean up Carson City or Stewart or Bonneville avenues by limiting the damage to 12 years, they can pass an initiative the right way.

    We'll see if the current justices can right the wrong their colleagues created in 1996 when they changed the language of the initiative petition.

    The court certainly has legal grounds to toss term limits. The problem is that these elected judges are standing on political soil.

    Contact Erin Neff at (702) 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.



    Leave Your Comment 43 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:

    jena wrote on July 29, 2008 08:21 PM:
    You are very wrong!!!!!!!!!


    Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on July 13, 2008 01:40 AM: Hey Erin, I'm seeing both your view and Ralston's on this issue - how about a compromise?

    Term limits wouldn't be good for the few ethical, competent, selfless serving representatives - we certainly don't want to lose them to some limt?

    So, what about the bad guys and gals?

    How about we change the law so we're more able to quickly indict, convict and impeach criminal politicians - you know hold them accountable to a code of honor (kind of like what we do in our military when they violate their oath of office and public trust)!

    That way, say, just for example, when a politician takes bribes from some buddy trying to get a contract, or, assaults a single mother in a parking garage, or intimidates a state employee, you know, like a County Assessor to get a tax break - we, the people of Nevada could quickly empanel a grand jury, investigate, indict, and have their sorry butt impeached and put in jail!

    Gee, what a concept - EVERYONE EQUAL UNDER THE RULE OF LAW!

    And let's make the playing field equal for citizens and lobbyist alike - the lobbyist get a seat at the table like any other citizen, with only ONE VOTE - NOTHING MORE!

    The good guys and gals get to stay as long as they wish and the voters keep re-electing them...and the bad boys and bad gurls just don't last very long in ethcial system where the code of conduct is quickly enforced...gee, imagine that?

    Hey, it's better than the French solution of pulling out the guiolltines and taking off heads in the public streets - isn't it?

    BTW: I have feral cats drinking water and eating my cats food on my patio at night - is there a way I can get a "grazing" tax break for this?


    nevdem wrote on July 12, 2008 06:41 PM: tim,

    I'm sorry to have to disagree with you. Please don't take offense.

    Term limits will only serve to make lobbyists more powerful, as neophyte legislators (who are only part time anyway) will rely on the "advice" (I'm trying to be polite) they will be getting from said lobbyists. I'm not opposed to fresh blood or fresh ideas, but knowing how to craft legislation that doesn't have lots of uninteded consequences is an art form. If you have any doubt of that assertion, just look at the constitutional question now in front of the State Supreme Court.

    As for Rory Reid, you may be surprised to learn that his father publicly advised him AGAINST running for his current position (I believe Ralston - Sorry Erin - wrote about this recently)! That's not exactly nepotism. Furthermore, I doubt his father particularly wants Rory on a statewide ballot while he himself is running for reelection. (Also recently written about in the local media.)

    As for "top of the line health care far beyond that of the common folk," Nevada's State Legislators do not receive a health insurance policy from the state. If they have health insurance at all, they get it from whatever their full time jobs are.

    "The people come next," or more acurately last, because we have primarily amateurs in Carson. If you want quality in government (i.e., people who are commited enough to our state and communities that they would be willing to give up their comfy, safe, mostly high-paying jobs for the risk of elected jobs that could be lost at the whim of a fickle electorate), then it is time for a full-time state legislature.

    I know this will never happen...which is why we will never have a quality government in our fair state.


    Sad Summerlin wrote on July 10, 2008 10:06 PM: JNN - We will have to agree to disagree on the experience aspect. While industry knowledge is a benefit, it is not requirement... which is why Business Leaders of companies that specialize in construction, finance, and entertainment, can have a CEO that covers all three (GE for example).

    Politicians should have experience with the operations of their own business, law firms, corporations that they lead or have worked for in their time. That experience should be sufficient for government... I for one do not want our politicians to "learn on the job" about how to lead and run a business or an administration.

    Career politicians lose site of how their public sector lives impact the private sector, which is why I advocate rotating in fresh blood for renewal. It prevents the ivory tower approach...

    Just answer these two questions (and really this is not to be political party related, just an example)...

    Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney from Massachusetts... regardless of political affiliation... who would you want to lead the business you own and have your money invested? Which one would bring you profits... the career politician of Kennedy... or the self-made millionaire, Olympics Organizer, and Governor who has lead an administration? What has Kennedy done in all his years of being in the Senate to ground him in the reality of Private life?

    2 Years is not the term limit established... I believe it is 2 TERMS which is 4 years or 8 years depending on position. That should be long enough... if not... what is?

    And thanks for the nice civil debate...


    jnn wrote on July 10, 2008 09:19 PM: Sad, I think you missed my point. Absolutley everyone should be able to research and decide appropriately. Everyone should do their own research and decide appropriately.

    Executives do need technical knowledge of their industry; as well as the ability to review procedures, implement policies and make sound decisions. How would you do any of the above without knowledge of the industry?

    I said I agreed with term limits to a point. I don't agree with career politicians, but with todays political climate 2 years just isn't long enough to be effective in any way.


    Sad Summerlin wrote on July 10, 2008 09:07 PM: JNN - do you need experience in choosing a candidate for election? You should be able to do your research and decide appropriately...

    Executives of companies can move between industries not because of the technical knowledge of the industry, but their ability to review procedures, implement policies and make sound decisions...

    Can you find any of those traits in long term politicians?


    jnn wrote on July 10, 2008 07:16 PM: Ok, I agree to a point, but if I took a job that I never had before is two years long enough to be any good at it? Don't we need experienced people? Just a thought.


    tim wrote on July 10, 2008 05:43 PM: it is for them and them alone.well add in lobbyist showering giifts,free parking,front of the line passes,first class airlines,paid for by you and me,nepotism,i.e.rory reid,perks,pensions,top of the line health care far beyond that of the common folk and there you have it.we the people come next.term limits will stop this charade.


    Sad Summerlin wrote on July 10, 2008 04:56 PM: While I rarely agree with Erin's position and this piece is hardly different, I do believe her writing style is getting better and less childish... but then again, I may be wrong too.

    If our own politicians had self-control and the best interests of the people in mind, then we wouldn't need this legislation. Unfortunately, the will of the voters and the people rarely get heard because we have an electorate too apathetic to research the details behind the candidates running. Incumbents have the political machine, muscle and name recognition behind them to have an advantage over their opponents... that's a pure fact. It is only in times of major change and/or problems, or stated incompetence that incumbents lose their seats.

    Incumbents should serve the will of the people and then do the responsible thing and step aside to allow other ideas and fresh blood into the political process. Unfortunately, on a national level, our politicians relish the power and mostly the perks of their position and our government becomes stale and lazy. If there is no need or inspiration to impress anyone since positions are relatively guaranteed, then there is no reason to "perform" above and beyond and make a difference in government. Term limits and one such measure to inspire this performance... and while I voted for them twice, I feel that our politicians should have had the courage to limit their own participation before the will of the people was put in place... We do live in a Republic and Term Limits do not match a Republic's charter --- but they have become necessary.

    We all just have to ask ourselves a simple question... why are the politicians fighting to remain in office beyond the limits? Is it for you, or for them?


    JJJ wrote on July 10, 2008 04:26 PM: Could not have said it any better NLV Resident!


    Read All Comments