Still battling term limits

Boy, you could see this one coming.

Many a Nevada "elected" official -- lots run in districts so gerrymandered to favor their own party that the "other party" fields no credible challenger, leaving the field to the occasional cabdriver or muffler repairman who throws his hat in the ring for a lark and the cost of a filing fee -- believes these lucrative offices are their personal property. They are outraged that voters would dare enact term limits that apply to them.

After all, you could have voted for the penniless cabdriver -- if you'd been able to find out who he was. These foot-draggers follow a predictable pattern. They spend the taxpayers' own money to challenge the legality of placing term limits on the ballot. When that fails, they "encourage" businesses and other donors in need of political favors to fund campaigns against these measures. When that fails and the term limits pass, they head back to court, asking that the measures be gutted or delayed.

In Nevada, the last option worked, up to a point. Term limits, which by their own wording could have kicked in upon enactment in 1996, were delayed by the courts till 2008, while the portion that applied to judges was carefully excised.

But finally, on July 25, the Nevada Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling that term limits as enacted are perfectly proper and have gone into effect. Finally, the issue is settled. Right?

Maybe not. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, who is about to start his last legislative session as a state senator before being "limited out," has asked for a draft of a constitutional amendment to erase the 12-year cap on Nevada Senate and Assembly service. The proposal would have to be approved by the 2009 and 2011 Legislatures and then ratified by voters in 2012.

"We have something called term limits -- it's the vote," said Sen. Washington. "If constituents don't like the job, they can vote the person out."

Actually, that was the situation in 1995, before the voters spoke. Perhaps Sen. Washington has been spending too much time with Professor Peabody and Sherman in the Wayback machine. Today, voters have a far more effective tool to remove lawmakers who have become overly encrusted with the barnacles of special-interest favoritism -- and the unchallengeable war chests they fund. Voters have term limits.

Sen. Washington has every right to go back to voters and seek a repeal -- though he should really do it at his own expense, the way the original sponsors had to.

He should also know that he faces an uphill battle. Those who believe elected offices should become their lifetime fiefdoms have failed in every attempt to get voters to repeal term limits, once enacted.

Yes, two states have lost their term limits. But these reverses came when voters were overruled.

Oregon voters passed term limits on their legislature and statewide officeholders in 1992 by a 70 percent majority, according to the group U.S. Term Limits. Two termed-out legislators sued the voters. In December 2001, the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled that the term limits law violated a "single subject" requirement (sound familiar?) and threw them out, overruling voters.

Idaho voters passed term limits on their legislators, statewide officeholders and local officeholders in 1994 by a 59 percent majority. In 1998, the legislature placed an "advisory" question on the ballot, hoping voter support of term limits would be found to have waned. Instead, Idaho voters reaffirmed their support for term limits.

So, in 2001, state and local officeholders sued Idaho voters in a case that made its way to the Idaho Supreme Court.

But that didn't work, either. The Idaho court ruled term limits were perfectly constitutional. No matter. In February 2002, the Idaho Legislature ignored two votes of the people and became the first state in the nation to repeal a term limits law.

Term limits don't do well when members of the ruling class get to decide. But when voters are "the deciders," it's a different story. Sen. Washington would be wise to remember that.