Courts should not overrule voters’ will

Roy York, Henderson

Monday, April 14, 2008 | 2:03 a.m.

Friday’s editorial in the Las Vegas Sun regarding the quiet interference by Sen. Harry Reid and others to have term limits overturned makes me madder than a wet cat. Term limits were imposed by the people several years ago with a solid majority of over 70 percent.

Arguments such as “why throw out the most experienced people” and “why restrict voter choice” ring hollow. If they are truly good, they can run for office in another venue; voters are capable of making good choices — well, most of the time. Former Clark County commissioners Lance Malone, Dario Herrera and Erin Kenny do come to mind. And voters almost always have a choice.

If our courts meddle in this, it will prove that they truly only care about perpetuating their terms in office, not for the people, but at the expense of the people.

The argument in the editorial I find most specious and highly irritating is “why impose the will of 1990 voters on future voters?” Well then, using that argument, why is it so important to make it difficult to ratify a change of the Constitution? After all, using that logic, aren’t we allowing the politicians of the 1770s to dictate how we run our country today?

There is no infringement on voter choice by following the term limits. The voters have already spoken — twice. We’ve made our choice. To have our politicians use a back door to “infringe” the voters choice is a far more dangerous and slippery slope. It’s about time some of our politicians got a real job anyway.