Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: When term limits become a reality

Friday, April 5, 2002 | 2:56 a.m.

When George Nethercutt was successfully running for office in 1994 to unseat House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., he was all for term limits. One of his bumper stickers read "Politicians and diapers need to be changed -- often for the same reason."

Pledging to stay only three terms, or six years, Nethercutt reneged on his promise when, in 2000, it was time for his diapers to be brought home to Spokane from Washington. This didn't bother his constituents, and he not only won again two years ago, but he also looks like a winner for a fifth term this fall.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states can't restrict the number of terms a member of Congress may serve. Such a restriction would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. People running for Congress would have to restrict their own number of terms until Congress is willing to send the states an opportunity to vote on a constitutional change. Don't hold your breath until this takes place.

The Supreme Court didn't interfere with the power of states to limit the terms of state legislators and several other local office holders. The pressure was on Nevada legislators to provide for this restriction, and the voters of Nevada let their legislators know how they felt. Don't worry about a mass exodus from Carson City; our legislators made sure that the earliest any would have to leave their nest in Carson City will be 2010. Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, along with Sen. Joe Neal, D-North Las Vegas, can stay there until 2012. This will give them both 40 years in the upper house.

It will be interesting to see if our legislators will try to get around the term limits they have imposed on themselves. Actually Nevada has some of the more liberal restrictions, which allow 12 years in each house. A majority of the states have limits of eight years and a couple have limits of six years.

Recently the California Legislature found the six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate allowed there a bit binding. This had them going back to the people with Proposition 45, which lost 58 percent to 42 percent. Very simply, they were told to leave the term limits alone. This didn't make the Los Angeles Times' editorial writers happy.

North of us in Idaho, the Republican-controlled Legislature did its own dirty work and avoided the people. The Reno Gazette-Journal recently took a look at both California and Idaho when writing: "There has always been a touch of hypocrisy in the drive for term limits for elected officials.

"There surely were supporters who believed that democracy would be served by limiting the number of terms an official could serve. For others, however, term limits were nothing more than a tool to get rid of someone who couldn't be beaten at the ballot box. In California, for instance, the movement was largely fed by the desire to loosen Willie Brown's grip on the state Assembly. In Idaho, the purpose was to get rid of Democrats.

"So it should come as no surprise that Idaho's Republicans last week put an end to term limits, now that Democrats have been thoroughly routed and Republicans are in firm control of the government. In doing so, they overrode both the original vote of the citizens and veto by the governor of the term-limits repeal."

The Reno newspaper, like the Times, doesn't believe in the limiting of terms. There are legitimate arguments against these limitations. What should bother voters of both states is the phony approach used by legislators to undo what they used to win elections in past years.

Now it is up to Nevadans to keep their eyes on what Silver State legislators might try to do after serving a lifetime in office.