The ‘prerogative of the people’

The biggest remaining question is why -- since the Nevada Supreme Court ruled state term limits valid in 1996 -- the high court decided to give the "I want to stay in office forever" gang another shot at the basket, this week.

Wistfulness?

Setting aside that suspicion, however, the general tone of the questions from the bench in Carson City on Monday would seem to justify cautious optimism that Nevada's state Supreme Court may, at the very least, reject the absurd argument that term limits -- enacted by voters in 1994 and again in 1996 after heated public campaigns -- should be thrown out because the electorate "didn't know what they were doing."

Of course, those who seek to cling to political power for longer than the average King of France would be equally happy if the court were to rule the term limit votes invalid on the ground voters failed to enact the measure twice "in the same manner."

That claim would rest on the fact that the wording of the measures approved in 1994 and 1996 was different.

The problem with that claim is that the wording was different only because the state Supreme Court itself ruled the proposed term limits for judges had to be broken off into a separate question in 1996 -- guaranteeing the voters, as they did so, that such a step would not constitute a change sufficient to justify the objection that the same measure would not then have been approved twice "in the same manner" as required ... the very argument the 2008 court is now asked to embrace.

Chief Justice Mark Gibbons opened Monday's hearing by stressing that legislative lawyer Kevin Powers -- there to argue against term limits on behalf of Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno -- bore the "burden of proof" to show the term limits question was not properly enacted 12 years ago.

Mr. Powers was the only plaintiff challenging the voter-approved constitutional amendment.

The judge's questions are not an absolutely reliable indicator of how they will rule, of course. For that matter, this court is not even limited to adopting any of the courses of action proposed by those who argue before them, as the high court so convincingly demonstrated when it ruled the Legislature could ignore the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote to hike taxes, in its stunning 2003 decision in Guinn v. Legislature.

That said, however, virtually every question the jurists asked of Mr. Powers Monday seemed to challenge his reasoning.

"Why did the Legislature wait 12 years to bring this up?" asked Justice Jim Hardesty.

It is the "prerogative of the people" to limit politicians' service in office, added Judge Michael Douglas.

Even if the high court reaffirms the amendment was enacted properly, of course, the devil will then be in the details: Which 12-year incumbents, if any, will be allowed to seek "one more term" this November? Which will not?

Enough confusion has prevailed, enough rumors have swirled, enough respect for the rule of law has eroded, more than enough "room to disagree" has been left around this issue. Regardless of where the justices draw their line, what is needed now is a ruling clean, simple and definitive enough to resolve this issue once and for all, ending what could otherwise be an endless parade of "But what if she took office on the 29th of February during Leap Year?" challenges.

Early voting for the primaries starts July 26. Time to revise ballots is nearly gone, if not gone entirely.

Come on. Everyone has had 14 years to think about this. If the law is seldom perfect, at least it can be prompt, consistent and clear.

The court owes us that.