State politicians still fighting term limits

Nevada voters went to the polls in 1994 and 1996 and approved a state constitutional amendment to limit state senators, Assembly members and local politicians to 12 years in a single office. State constitutional officers were limited to two four-year terms.

But Churchill County District Attorney Arthur Mallory last year won his fourth, four-year term, leading Fallon resident Frank O'Connor to file litigation challenging his right to continue holding the office.

Arguments were heard by the Nevada Supreme Court on Wednesday.

District attorneys prosecute suspects under state law. At least three times previously, the Supreme Court itself has called district attorneys "state officers," according to Las Vegas lawyer Bradley Schrager, assigned by the court to represent the plaintiff.

But if there is any ambiguity about the intention of the term-limits ballot question, it should be "resolved in favor of the officeholder," responded attorney Robert Eisenberg, representing Mr. Mallory.

With all due respect, such disputes should be resolved not "in favor of the officeholder," but in favor of the voters.

Justice Mark Gibbons mused that district attorneys are paid by counties, not the state. Yes they are. And congressmen are paid by the federal Treasury. Does this create for them, as federal employees, a conflict of interest that immediately bars them from representing the residents of their home states?

Term limits are intended to revive and renew the age-old American principles of government by our fellow citizens and rotation in office -- the furthest thing from an elite, professional class. Nevadans were and are roundly sick of the brand of arrogance that treats public offices as the private property of the officeholders.

Yet getting elected officials to abide by the restriction has been a chore.

First, 17 years ago, the state Supreme Court peeled judges off of the term limits initiative, declaring voters would have to vote separately on term limits for the judicial branch -- which, as a naked and isolated provision, judges and attorneys managed to defeat.

Then the high court ruled that voters couldn't have meant for term limits to take effect immediately upon enactment. No, lawmakers and others who'd already been on the public payroll for decades were given an additional 12 years in office before term limits would apply to them.

Then, just prior to the 2008 election, as the limits were about to kick in, several lawmakers convinced attorneys with the Legislative Counsel Bureau to challenge the validity of the amendment itself in order to preserve their cushy sinecures. They lost.

This case is not about Mr. Mallory's fitness or conduct in office, which have presumably been estimable. Instead, the relevant context here is the ongoing, 17-year campaign of Nevada's political class to undercut the will of the voters, who overwhelmingly voted twice for term limits.