Uninformed Electorate?

By Dana Gentry

Monday, July 28, 2008 | 4:16 p.m.

The best reason for term limits is an uninformed electorate. The worst reason for term limits is an uninformed electorate.

Are we so jaded as a society that the fundamental right of having a say in our democracy is given about as much reverance as choosing between the Venti and Grande sizes at Starbucks?

If you buy the argument that voters knew what they were doing when they passed term limits, doesn't it follow that the same informed electorate is capable of limiting terms the old-fashioned way, in the voting booth?

Such is the conundrum of term limits. The Nevada Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion penned by Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, said the will of the voters back in 1994 and 1996 was clear - 12 years in service and you're out.

School board member Ruth Johnson says she would have liked a chance to handpick a potential successor. But Steve Sisolak, who challenged longtime Commissioner Bruce Woodbury's eligibility and is running for his seat, says voters are smart and don't need to be told whom to choose next. Sisolak, who has had the good fortune of being elected and re-elected, says he indeed trusts the electorate, but doesn't trust entrenched politicians to look out for the will of their constituents. He also laments the lack of accessiblity newcomers have to programs like Face to Face.

Woodbury, a 27-year veteran of the commission, stopped short of saying the justices were afraid of political ads claiming they ignored the will of the people, but did cite that "the largest paper in the state" threatened retribution to the supremes who didn't support the limits.

Sisolak's attorney, Dominic Gentile, says he's sick and tired of hearing that the electorate is uninformed. He's also apparently tired of hearing that voters can think for themselves. Such is the conundrum of term limits.