Is this political?

By Dana Gentry

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 | 2:27 p.m.

That's what one school board trustee asked Jon after today's program on the squabble over which candidates the Secretary of State may attempt to throw off the ballot for exceeding Nevada's voter-imposed term limits. At issue are seemingly contradictory interpretations of seemingly contradictory passages from former Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa's 1996 opinion:

Since the effective date of the petition would be November 27, 1996, [the date of the official canvass by the Nevada Supreme Court, which according to the state constitutions is when the initiative would take effect] the term limitations will not apply to affected officials elected in the 1996 general election. If approved, term limits would be in effect for the 1997 municipal elections, and the 1998 primary and general elections, and so on.

Good enough. But then the very next paragraph of her opinion stated: If the voters approve the Initiative to Limit Terms of State and Local Officers in the general election in November 1996 [which they did], only periods of service commencing after November 27, 1996, will be counted as a term for limitation purposes.

Doesn't that include those elected in November 1996 and taking office in January 1997? Secretary of State Ross Miller (who was not available to appear nor for a taped phone interview) and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (equally unavailable) are adhering to the language in the petition declaring those who have served 12 years by the end of their current term are toast, while the elected officials favor Del Papa's take above.

The implications are far-reaching and affect both parties, so it is hard to believe Miller and Cortez-Masto are politically motivated. Still, school board members Mary Beth Scow and Ruth Johnson, both of whom say they'll challenge Miller if thrown off the ballot, wonder why their candidacies were not questioned immediately, since each filed on the first day of the period. The delay, they say, cost their supporters a chance to line up a suitable replacement. And I wonder what offices Scow and Johnson might have given a gander?

Tomorrow: The deal to avoid an increase in the gaming tax, i.e., how the gaming industry dictates tax policy in Nevada.