Editorial: Limiting voters’ choices

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 | 7 a.m.

Nine years ago Nevada voters enacted term limits for state lawmakers, which will take effect in 2011 for the first time.

As the Las Vegas Sun reported on Sunday, seven senators and 11 assemblymen will be forced to give up their seats in late 2010, and 18 likely inexperienced lawmakers will take their places.

Although 2011 seems a little far off to think about who will be sitting in the Nevada Legislature, lobbyists told Sun reporter Joe Schoenmann that they already are making plans on how to best leverage the lack of experience among new legislators. One lobbyist told the Sun simply, "Our power will grow."

That is not, we assume, what voters intended to happen when they approved term limits in 1998. Proponents of term limits hope to prevent career politicians from holding onto what is perceived as too much control. But forcing longtime lawmakers out of office won't necessarily improve Nevada's law-making process. In fact, term limits could harm the integrity of the process.

Although legislators pass the laws that govern Nevada, they are not the only ones involved in crafting legislation. Lobbyists often have strong influence over what those bills say - even to the point of writing some of the language used in legislation.

When experienced lawmakers are tossed out of the Legislature, career lobbyists are the ones who can continue exercising their influence on Nevada's laws year after year. This is not to say that all career lobbyists are bad. Many are very straightforward and helpful and have experience and knowledge that is useful.

But the same is true of legislators, and yet they are forced to leave - assemblymen after six two-year terms and senators after three four-year terms.

We have consistently opposed term limits because they unfairly stifle voters' choices. We think that Nevadans will come to regret enacting these arbitrary limits.