Why this set of term limits isn’t constitutional

Susan Ivy Allen, Las Vegas

Saturday, July 12, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.

The people of Nevada deserve to have leaders and courts that follow the law. We should show special respect for the Constitution.

No matter your position on term limits for elected officials, the Nevada Constitution demands that the Supreme Court rule current incumbents (such as Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury) can continue to run for reelection.

This has nothing to do with anyone’s personal beliefs about term limits. It has to do with Article 19, Section 2, Part 4 of the Nevada Constitution, which requires that an amendment must be brought before the voters twice and be approved both times to become part of the Constitution.

While it is true that voters have twice supported term limits amendments, they have yet to vote twice on the same amendment. The first vote covered 12-year limits for all state and local elected officials. The second vote covered every official except judges.

I’m not a lawyer and so cannot advise the next steps if indeed we wish to impose term limits. But common sense and respect for the law require we accept the fact that the necessary steps to amend the Constitution have not been followed. Term limits cannot now be imposed.