WEEKLY EDITORIAL RECAP

Term limits under attack

APril 13

Here in Nevada, voters installed term limits for state office-holders through a constitutional amendment OK'd overwhelmingly in 1994 and again in 1996.

But the state's Supreme Court planted a time bomb in that process. Between the first and second votes, the court changed the wording of the amendment, breaking out term limits for judges into a separate question, where the self-serving justices correctly believed it could more easily be defeated.

Now, with term limits about to kick in, with the prince about to start chopping through the thicket around the castle, the forces of perpetual personal power are getting busy, preparing a challenge based on the claim that the imposed wording change prevented voters from actually approving the same amendment twice, as required. ...

So what's the new, voter-defying strategy?

If county registrars were ordered to accept filing papers from term-limited incumbents, the burden would then be on term-limit supporters to go to court as plaintiffs. ...

It seems the Democrats are taking the lead in attempting to stymie the voters' will on rotation in office -- though you can bet the party's "big names" will be at considerable pains to keep their fingerprints off the machinations.

This is all quite scurrilous, cynical and disgusting. If opponents of term limits think they have a winning case, let them pass petitions, put a repeal on the ballot, and argue their case in public.

Instead, don't be surprised if Nevada term limits turn up dead in the alley some rainy night -- and all the incumbent politicians turn out to have air-tight alibis. ...