Prosecutor won’t fight regent’s candidacy based on term limits

The Washoe County district attorney's office on Friday decided not to proceed with the secretary of state's challenge to University Regent Howard Rosenberg's candidacy based on term limits.

District Attorney Richard Gammick said there was not probable cause to take the challenge to court, according to a letter from Gammick to Secretary of State Ross Miller.

"I am of the opinion that probable cause does not exist in support of the challenge of Mr. Rosenberg's candidacy," Gammick wrote. "Therefore, I will not be pursuing this matter further."

Meanwhile, an undaunted Miller issued challenges to three more elected officials Friday based on his interpretation of the term limits.

Miller contends that local officials elected in 1996 have served the 12 years allowed under the voter-approved amendment and cannot run again. Others argue that because the amendment was passed in 1996, it did not begin affecting regular elections until 1998.

On Friday, challenges were sent to Churchill County Commissioner Lynn Pearce, Humboldt County Commissioner John Milton and Washoe County official James Ainsworth, a member of the Sun Valley General Improvement District board.

Challenges previously were issued to officials in Clark, Humboldt and Pershing counties. It is up to the individual district attorneys to decide whether to pursue the matter in District Court.

In Pershing County, a court hearing is set for June 20.

Clark County District Attorney David Roger said Friday he has not decided whether to go forward with the challenges to Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, University Regent Thalia Dondero and two members of the Clark County School Board.

Rosenberg, who was first elected in 1996, said Friday he was relieved by the decision.

"Dick Gammick is a damn good DA and a damn good lawyer," he said. "I'm hoping the attorney general will agree so we can have done with this. Enough's enough."

The attorney general's office, which advised Miller on the challenges, is waiting for the challenges to make their way through the justice system around the state, spokeswoman Nicole Moon said.

"We are considering our legal options and waiting to see how the issue is handled in the other jurisdictions," she said.

Gammick said in his letter he was relying on a 1977 Nevada Supreme Court case, Torvinen v. Rollins, that had to do with whether an incumbent judge was affected by a change in the state constitution extending judges' terms from four to six years.

In that decision, the court ruled that the amendment did not affect the term of an incumbent because it was not retroactive.

The decision further stated "that this prospective application applies only to an election held after the amendment's effective date," according to Gammick.

Gammick added, "If the situation were otherwise, (the constitutional amendment) would be given impermissible retroactive effect in its application to an election held, and to a successfully elected candidate, before the law's effective date of November 27, 1996."

Nov. 27 is the date the 1996 election was canvassed by the Supreme Court and became official. Nevada voters approved two different versions of the term limits amendment in 1994 and 1996; a constitutional amendment by ballot initiative must be approved twice.

Miller thinks the term limits apply to local officials elected in November 1996 because they were not sworn in until January 1997.

On Friday, he said he is sticking with his interpretation.

"I'm confident that 12 years means 12 years under the statute," he said. "These people are term limited out. We've looked at each candidacy on an individual basis in consultation with the attorney general's office and arrived at that conclusion."

With at least one court scheduled to hear the matter, "I'm confident these issues will ultimately be resolved in court," Miller said.

Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.