The greatest danger was that some on the court might seek to reverse an earlier ruling which held -- despite the court-ordered division of the 1994 term limits question into two parts in 1996 -- that voters did indeed approve 12-year term limits for state and local officeholders twice "in the same manner" in 1994 and again in 1996, as required by law.

Nope. The court held Friday that Nevada's term limits stand. One bullet dodged.

True, the court allowed legislators such as Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley to seek another term -- which is tantamount to "assuming another term," given the way lawmakers have gerrymandered so many "safe" partisan districts -- on the technicality that Ms. Buckley took office on the day after the 1996 election, whereas term limits didn't take effect until the formal canvas of that election, a few weeks later.

Thus, the court now holds, Ms. Buckley (and a few others in the same circumstance) has not served 12 years in office, but only 11 years and 340-odd days, meaning she gets another roll of the dice.

That's a pretty slim reed -- especially since Ms. Buckley first assumed her current office not in 1996, but in 1994, meaning she did indeed hold this same office during the first three weeks of November 1996, and has thus served a full 12 years (and more) by anyone's clock.

At least the court now holds she (and state Sen. Raggio, R-Reno, and others) can be relieved of the duty of any further service come 2010 -- though some begin to wonder if some stakes and garlic might not be of service.

Barred from further terms -- immediately -- are others who will have served a full 12 years come Election Day, including Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury. Mr. Woodbury has actually served 27 years, as former Attorney General Frankie Sue del Papa did incumbent politicians the enormous favor of declaring in 1996 that the amendment actually meant "12 years starting in 1996." That's not what it says, but the court showed little appetite to overrule the error at this late date.

The usual complaints are now heard that the populace will thus be deprived of all the knowledge and experience of such senior officeholders -- that their replacements will be more easily duped by corporate lobbyists and the like.

In fact, lobbyists prefer to work with known parties they've long since learned how to groom. (If it's true that the longer our legislators are in office, the more likely they are to stand up to and defy casino and union and state-employee lobbyists, why is it those very forces seem so happy to finance the endless campaigns of these old warhorses?)

Americans are supposed to be governed by fellow citizens, taking turns to execute a public office before returning to live among us under the laws they've enacted -- not by a class of professional lords and masters with what amounts to lifetime tenure. (Remember George H.W. Bush's amazement at seeing his first supermarket scanner? Think that guy worries about the price of milk and paying the power bill and how to find a parking space?)

That's why Nevada voters enacted term limits.

The remaining problem with Friday's decision is that it arrives at such a late date that primary ballots have already been printed. It's thus perfectly possible the popular Mr. Woodbury might still win re-election, despite being disqualified from serving.

Should Mr. Woodbury prevail, the Republican state central committee would choose his replacement for the general election ballot, without being bound to choose the candidate who runs second in the primary.

Since the party is a private outfit, that's fine -- though it again raises the question of why taxpayers are stuck financing primary elections to help private parties choose their own nominees, in the first place.