Sound Off: SUN readers speak out on the Nov. 5 ballot questions

Monday, Oct. 28, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

In less than a month, the people of Nevada will be voting on the most crucial reform in our government's history: term limits. Question 17 is the means to a more responsive and representative government.

Term limits will fundamentally change the politics in Washington. No longer will our representatives be beholden to lobbyists, staffers and special interest groups that thrive as a result of the seniority system in Congress. Two terms for senators and three terms for House members will free our legislators to work for us, their constituents -- not to mention eliminate all the perks and privileges that corrupt the legislative process. Vote yes on Question 17, because our congressmen will never vote term limits on themselves.

Mandy Shavinsky

Veto term limits

SUN Executive Editor Mike O'Callaghan's Where I Stand column on Question 17 did a great service to the people of Nevada with his no-holds-barred evaluation of the question and its dangers. Perhaps space did not permit his mentioning another good reason to vote no on Question 17: Nowhere is it set out for us who would choose the delegates, how many should be chosen, how they would be chosen or who would have a say in their agenda.

The people of Nevada and, indeed, the whole United States would have no say in who would represent them, no recourse if delegates from the 37 other states required to call a constitutional convention were people we absolutely did not want to decide anything for our state -- much less the direction or death of our democratic system and freedoms.

The editors of the Denver Post have called this question, which is on the ballot in 14 states including Colorado, a "Con-Con con," and the people of Nevada would be wise to pay attention to the executive editor of the SUN and vote no on Question 17.

Lois Gross

Impose limits

In 1994, Nevadans passed term limits on its federal legislators by an overwhelming 70 percent majority, only to have the courts strike down the will of the people. There is a reason why we passed limits: to eliminate the corruption and privilege of long-term incumbency, which hasn't changed in the past two years. Indeed, it has gotten worse. Voting yes on Question 17 on November's ballot is another opportunity to demand accountability from our legislators.

Term limits at all levels -- especially federal -- are necessary to keep politicians responsive to the people whom they serve. A representative's focus should be his or her constituents, not the big moneyed interests so pervasive on Capitol Hill. The president serves two terms because that is the right amount of time for effective service. Three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate are the right congressional limits. Vote yes on Question 17, and return Congress to the citizens.

Dorris Franks

Send Congress home

Members of Congress have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to proposing an amendment to limit their own terms. Left on their own, members of Congress will never impose term limits on themselves. As for the argument that term limits are not needed because of high turnover in the Congress, consider this: In 1994, when a tidal wave of new members was swept into office and control of both the House and Senate changed hands, more than 90 percent of incumbents seeking reelection were returned to office.

Scare tactics aside, Nevadans overwhelmingly favor congressional term limits. Question 17 should and will pass by a wide margin on Nov. 5.

Hal Furman

Political blunder

Hal Furman picked the worst possible example he could have found to criticize Mike O'Callaghan's opposition to Question 17.

The direct election of U.S. senators is one of the biggest blunders we ever made as a nation. When the states voted to approve the 17th Amendment, they committed constitutional suicide by eliminating themselves as a constituent part of the federal government.

The growth of the central government and its insatiable and unchecked hunger for more control over American life has its roots in the 17th Amendment.

The irony here is that anyone who knows Furman is aware of how passionately he believes in the 10th Amendment which, from a practical standpoint, was rendered moot by the 17th.

Are term limits a good idea? Yes. We should impose them if we can. For example, by voting yes on both parts of Question 9. However, they are not a magic bullet. On a scale of one to 10, they're probably in the six to eight range. Are they worth the risk of a Constitutional Convention? History says no way.

Mike is right. No on Question 17.

Knight Allen

Danger to republic

Ballot Question 17, if passed, would force the Nevada Legislature to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. Scholars at the major law schools have cautioned against holding a convention because it could make harmful changes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In his letter to the SUN, however, Hal Furman said there's nothing to worry about because any amendments proposed by a convention would have to be ratified by the legislatures of 38 states. At first glance, that seems assuring.

But why do Harvard's Laurence Tribe, Yale's Charles Black, Stanford's Gerald Gunther, Columbia's Richard Morris and Notre Dame's Charles Rice warn about the danger of a Constitutional Convention? In summary, here is how they explain it:

In a free society, the people can change their form of government any time they want. A constitutional convention is the orderly process for doing that. The people are sovereign and, therefore, they are superior to government. For that reason, there is no power to limit the activity of a convention. Not the president, the Congress nor the court can nullify the work of a convention.

The Convention of 1787 was supposed to abide by the rules in the Articles of Confederation (our first constitution), but the Convention threw it out and wrote a new one. How did they get the new one ratified? They changed the rules of ratification. Thirteen states were supposed to ratify it, but they changed the number required to nine. Moreover, it was supposed to be ratified by the state legislatures, but there was little support there, so they set up special ratifying conventions in the states. As historian Richard B. Morris explained it: "(T)he Convention shrewdly bypassed the state legislatures, attached as they were to states' rights, and which required in most cases the agreement of two houses."

Again in 1933, the legislatures were bypassed in the same manner to obtain ratification of the 21st Amendment, the repeal of prohibition. Congress felt sure that the legislatures in the "dry" states would not ratify it, so they set up special state ratifying conventions. Legislators in Utah, the driest of dry states, were offended by the irony that Utah, by this method, would have the distinction of becoming the 36th state (the number then required) to make legal the sale of liquor nationwide.

Notwithstanding the language of Article V, a convention is superior to the Constitution and would not be bound by it. That is why we cannot rest at ease with the idea that 38 states would come to the rescue if the convention mandated by Question 17 should get out of hand. The only sure way to protect the Constitution is to kill17. We can always limit terms in the way already established by the Constitution at the safe and sane ballot box.

Don Fotheringham

Support recall issue

Once again, thanks to recent disclosures in the press, we have learned about the arrogance and sheer disregard of human rights and feelings by Regent Carolyn Sparks. The disclosure of her secretly placing a lien against two elderly, ill people in an attempt to extract her pound of flesh is appallling. These people, quite dissatisfied with the performance of Sparks as a regent, were only exercising their constitutional right -- or so they believed. This proves that Judge Beko was successful in his prostituting of the Nevada constitution with his misinterpretation, thus thwarting any attempt to recall public officials.

Speaking of the constitution, why hasn't Sparks been removed from office and replaced, since she has moved and no longer resides in the district from which she was elected. She cannot represent that district, but is still allowed to serve as a lame duck.

None of this could be taking place if the Supreme Court was wise and judicious in its responsibility toward the citizens of Nevada. They, however, chose to protect the reputation of an old, retired judge. And why not? They are all birds of a feather, protecting one of their own, all members of the good-old-boy network. It is disgraceful for our court system to allow money to be extracted and hold any citizen financially responsible in any manner for exercising their constitutional right to recall any elected official.

This whole calamity would serve as an example why the public should vote yes on Question 3 on the Nov. 5 ballot. We must provide a reasonable, trouble-free signature-procurement method and freedom from financial risk to all Americans when they attempt to recall any official.

As for Fred and Hazel Case, they have my sincere sympathy for trying to act as public-spirited, responsible citizens and falling into the bitter, narrow-minded, vindictive viciousness of Carolyn Sparks.

Bob Goldberg

A disservice to nonprofits

The SUN's recommendation to vote no on Quesiton 14 was a real disservice to the charitable organizations in our area. Our volunteers and our donors should not have to support their state government with donations.

I am a member of the Assistance League of Las Vegas. We operate The Repeat Boutique. The state is taking a part of our donations and not allowing us to put it back in the community where it belongs.

Our largest project is "School Bell," a project where we buy new clothing for children to wear to school, thereby making them look acceptable and keeping them warm.

I urge the citizens who read your endorsement of a no answer to re-consider and to please vote yes.

Mary Scheer

Support the nonprofits

Question 14 on the November ballot is a measure which we all should support. A yes vote for Question 14 allows nonprofit charitable organizations (Scouts, youth sports, seniors, churches, libraries, PTAs, etc.) to be exempt from collecting sales tax on items which they sell as fund-raisers.

Everyone thought that nonprofits were exempt, but somehow this question was put on the ballot two years ago and was so poorly worded that few of us understood what was being voted upon. After the measure failed, nonprofits all received letters stating that we must now collect and remit sales tax for every yard sale item, used book, etc., that we sell. This is a nightmare for volunteer treasurers who are not expert accountants.

This item is again on the ballot, and it is again written backwards so that a yes vote is against the tax. Please support nonprofit groups by voting yes on Question 14.

Diana Wagner

archive