Fri, Apr 11, 2008 (2:07 a.m.)

There is a saying, “Be careful what you wish for, because it might come true,” that Nevada voters did not heed in the mid-1990s when they approved term limits for members of the Legislature.

For years the voters of that time had been bombarded by conservatives with the message that “career politicians” were ruining America. Lost in the cacophony were the consequences of changing the Nevada Constitution to force elected officials out based simply on their time in office. Why throw out the most experienced people? Why restrict voter choice? Why impose the will of 1990s voters on future voters?

These kinds of questions didn’t get the attention they deserved and the wishes of the voters of 1994 and 1996 came true. The effect of those wishes will be felt all too soon.

Nineteen legislators will lose their seats to term limits in 2010. Another seven will be forced out in 2012.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is concerned, as we are, that this exodus will create opportunities for special interest groups, whose lobbyists will likely find freshmen legislators more susceptible to their influence.

Opposition to the law goes beyond Reid. As the Las Vegas Sun’s J. Patrick Coolican reported Thursday, there is an effort by both Republicans and Democrats to upend it.

One possible way would be to pose a legal challenge to the law, on the grounds that it was not properly enacted.

Amending the Nevada Constitution requires voter approval in two successive general elections. In 1994 there was one ballot question, asking voters whether they wanted term limits for elected officials, including judges. Voters said yes, by a large margin.

By 1996, however, the Nevada Supreme Court had ordered a separate question for judges. In that election, voters spared judges from term limits.

Was splitting the question constitutional?

Bringing that question before the courts is the only way to know. Given the infringement on voter choice mandated by term limits, we say such a challenge is worthy.