Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookQuietly, Reid works to void term limits
Effort to strike amendment comes as top legislators stand to lose seats
Thu, Apr 10, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Beyond the Sun
Sen. Harry Reid continues to play a key role in a quiet but widespread effort in both parties to upend a state constitutional amendment passed in the 1990s imposing term limits on legislators.
The Nevada Democrat recently told Secretary of State Ross Miller, whose purview includes elections, to be ready to rule on whether the law is constitutional, according to two people with knowledge of the conversation.
Miller declined to comment about the conversation: “I have a number of discussions with Sen. Reid and I can’t discuss details about what we talk about.”
Reid spokesman Jon Summers said the two officials talked, but he also wouldn’t discuss details of the conversation.
Summers said Reid continues to be concerned that special-interest lobbyists will gain more influence if veteran legislators give way to newcomers.
It’s not clear what authority Miller would have to rule on term limits, but opponents of the law could cite a favorable opinion in any relevant court battle.
The Reid-Miller conversation follows a meeting organized by Reid that included prominent Nevada Democratic officeholders such as Mayor Oscar Goodman, Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus and Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson.
Republicans and their favored lobbyists are having informal conversations of their own about taking on term limits.
The matter is politically sensitive, lest the public come to believe the elected officials are trying to overturn the will of the voters.
Nineteen legislators, including Buckley, are scheduled to lose their seats in 2010 under the term limits approved more than a decade ago, according to a report by the Nevada Association of Counties.
Titus and six others will be forced to leave in 2012. Goodman and Gibson are both in their final mayoral terms.
Voters approved a term limit amendment in 1994 and passed it a second time, as required by the state Constitution, in 1996. It limits members of the Assembly to six two-year terms and senators to three four-year terms. Mayors are limited to three four-year terms. (A constitutional amendment passed in 1970 limits governors to two four-year terms.)
The term limits movement swept the country, and especially the West, beginning in the early ’90s. Conservative populists led the movement, which expressed outrage at long-serving incumbents and reelection rates that often approached 100 percent. Term limits were a plank of the Republicans’ 1994 Contract with America, though the party mostly lost interest in the cause after taking control of Congress and many state legislatures.
Term limits erode the effectiveness of state legislatures, according to a study commissioned by the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan research group.
“It was sold to the public as ending ‘career politicians.’ It doesn’t do that. They just divert their career path,” said Gary Moncrief, a Boise State University political scientist and co-author of the study.
Politicians who are forced to leave the Legislature run for other offices, often successfully. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had been the speaker of the California Assembly, for instance.
Term limits tend to reduce institutional knowledge about complex budget and regulatory issues, according to Bruce Cain, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley and an expert on term limits.
In the process, the states’ governors gain power relative to state legislatures, as do lobbyists who are armed with information to persuade the new legislators.
In Nevada, a legal challenge could hinge on the process by which the amendment passed in 1996.
The 1994 question before voters, which passed with 70 percent of the votes, limited the terms of elected officeholders, including judges. The Nevada Supreme Court then split the amendment into a Part B, which covered judges, and a Part A, which covered everyone else, according to a history of the amendment published by the Nevada Association of Counties.
Part A passed. Part B failed.
Term limit opponents, bolstered by a Miller opinion that made the same argument, could assert that the amendment approved in 1996 was different from the one passed in 1994, which could legally invalidate the amendment.
David McGrath Schwartz contributed to this report.
Discussion: 8 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Editors’ Picks
- The Wynn sues Barkley, claims $400,000 gambling debts unpaid
- Whatever she had, Cher’s still got it
- Dropping out to go to work
- Atomic testing burned its mark
- Yucca license application expected in early June
- Showtime: How Sin City evolved into ‘The Entertainment Capital of the World’
- And you wonder who pays for those expensive casinos
- Shots fired at Cheyenne High School
- Blunders yield bonanza
- Las Vegas Marathon owner runs up debt
Blogs
Elsewhere
Gibbons approves toll road proposal
Vegas News
Why flags are flying at half mast
Politics: The Early Line
Porter joins Dems in supporting beefed-up GI Bill (4 Comments)
Cops, Courts and Safety
UMC employee arrested for theft from hospital (1 Comment)
Vegas News
Federal report reveals more details about Las Vegas hepatitis outbreak
Politics: Ralston's Flash
They openly say they are NUTS
Vegas News
Las Vegas Sun named top newspaper Web site in nation (2 Comments)
Culture Blog
Celebs take shelter: Kathy Griffin heading toward Vegas
Calendar
- Dennis Miller (8 p.m.)
- Eddie Money (8 p.m.)
- Sacred music, sacred dance (7 p.m.)
- The Dropkick Murphys (9 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Prince Ross Miller will issue a decree from his new throne declaring that the common folk were illegal and foolish in passing this petition twice. He will bestow his wisdom upon us by saying that State Supreme court was ignorant in their ruling and that ruling caused the petitions to be invalid.
All hail the almighty all knowing Prince Ross Miller.
May our new prince and king, Miller and Reid, continue their rule over the common stupid citizens.
I am hoping that new Royalty will declare that all democratic processes be declared null and void.
Perhaps, they should also do away with other pesky things like the right to free speech and the right to vote.
Think you Miller. May you continue to grace us with your excellence.
Typical reid crap. This is the same crap we hear from these liberal elitist, the common people do not know what is good for them. Get off your high horse slime bag harry and let the people have their will upheld-democracy rules!!! Oh thats right only when things go your way.
reid should occupy himself with another slimy land deal, surely this should satisfy his need to pull another fast one at the expense of us peons.
Before Mr. Reid & Co. get too far with this little scheme, they might do well to remember what the state Supreme Court pulled a few years back when a pesky amendment, duly approved by the voters, was trashed as a matter of expediency to get a budget passed. The Supremes managed to unintentionally enact their own version of term limits by their actions. They are gone.
Perhaps Mr. Miller can find a loophole to launch this effort, but at the end of the day, what the voters wanted and intended will still be undeniably the same. I would hope the response of the voters to any such effort would be the same one the Supreme Court got.
I don't like term limits. So here's some ammo; here's the loophole: The NV Constitution requires any amendment to be passed two times in the same form. The term limit amendment was passed twice, but NOT in the same form. The second time did not include certain term limits for judges. It's void. it's an easy argument. Please, someone run with it.
Hey, I've got an idea, let's just ask the citizens of Nevada - AGAIN! Let's recognize the historical facts of 1994 and 1996, and how the Supreme Court ruled - but, remember the courts and politicians serve the people, and simply ask them AGAIN how they feel now-a-days in 2008 and, again, in 2010?
Then, do something really progressive - like honor the wishes and will of the majority of voters - you know, that democracy thingy!
Hey, and how about moving out of the 1864 era and getting the legislature the authority and budget to be in session for 180 days EVERY year (maybe, we wouldn't have to worry about incompetent Governors out of control)?
Here's another idea, how about bringing some of this wonderful new fangled technology into play - and save lots of travel expenses, and wasted travel time, by efficiently doing as much business as possible via tele-conferencing?
Maybe, just maybe, then, we would have a Nevada government that had enough time to do some really thoughtful work - like addressing our many crises and someting new - like PLANNING (beyond the next election cycle)!
This article has an interesting discussion of the value of term limits, but its completely irrelevant to the fact that the voters of Nevada determined they wnated term limits, and now we have them. If Reid wants to continue to do nothing in Congress after 2010, then he can petition the voters to change their mind. If he does otherwise, I think he'll discover that he may lose his seat regardless.
Keep in mind, we could do something new, also - like allowing term limited politicians to go ahead and run for "Emeritus" status - if the majority of people felt they were truly worthy, public servants that had performed extra-ordinarily, and the majority voted for them to stay in power - well, O.K. then!
That way, on the rare occasion when the people luck out and actually vote in a true states person - we'd not have to worry about losing them. Otherwise, I'm generally for term limits and the VTBO (Vote The Bums Out) philosophy!
I can't wait until 2010 when Harry Reid is up for re-election. I pray every day that he does not decide to retire. That would let him off of the hook. I look forward to his defeat at the ballot box and sending him packing back to Searchlight.