Trouble ahead for term limit foes

By Jon Ralston (contact)

Friday, April 11, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.

Never has the pursuit of a noble purpose had such potential for unintended and deleterious consequences.

My intrepid colleague J. Patrick Coolican has been tracking the furtive movements of a gaggle of term limit opponents, including Meddler in Chief Harry Reid, who have been scheming to find a way to scuttle the law passed a dozen years ago, albeit with judges exempted. The latest evidence Coolican uncovered is a conversation about a potential interpretation of term limits between Reid and the man who oversees election law, Secretary of State Ross Miller. The brief exchange occurred weeks ago, but as filing looms next month, it may be freighted with much significance.

None of this is surprising based on the imminent, forced excision of many prominent Nevada politicians, from Mayors Oscar Goodman and Jim Gibson to a raft of state lawmakers and local officials. Some pols, here and in other states, already affected by term limits have escaped the horror of private life by finding other elected jobs thus, Treasurer Brian Krolicki becomes Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki.

But what Reid, who is not included under the state term limits provision, wants to prevent is the nightmarish prospect of a world without a Mayor Goodman or a Mayor Gibson or a Speaker Barbara Buckley. Or at least give the voters a chance to decide whether they want to live in that world, not have it thrust upon them.

Bias upfront: I have long believed and written many times that term limits are an ephemeral palliative for incensed voters who believe longevity equals corruption, literal or figurative. So I would have no heartache should the Meddler in Chief and others have success with their plans.

But there will be consequences as this proceeds to its conclusion at the state Supreme Court. And this modern-day Light Brigade may be venturing into the valley of political death. To wit:

Longtime Carson City observers have noticed that only two factors allow Southern Nevada not to have the upper hand despite owning two-thirds of the seats. One, the Clark County delegation has the cohesiveness of 2-year-olds in a sandbox. Two, the tenure of rural and northern lawmakers has allowed them to snare key leadership and committee assignments.

Even opponents have seen term limits as having a leveling effect on the disproportionate northern/rural influence. Granted, that argument has become attenuated by Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio’s probable departure after one more term and by the exit of once-ambitious state Sen. Mark Amodei, hopelessly conflicted by his position as head of the Nevada Mining Association.

But if term limits are thrown out, it’s not inconceivable that Raggio, who may have succeeded where Ponce de Leon failed, could be around the capital for a while. (Raggio found his own Fountain of Youth in the same place de Leon claimed to have discovered his, but a few years later Florida, in the form of his wife, Dale.)

Most of the influential northern and rural lawmakers are Republicans, so erasing them from the political map can only help Democrats. And the more Democrats in Carson City in 2011, the more seats can be drawn to benefit the party, including a new congressional district.

But what about the public? We shouldn’t forget them, try as we might.

Term limits are one of those dormant issues, perhaps akin to Yucca Mountain. But if nuclear waste were on its way here, or if politicians tried to subvert the will of the people on term limits, the hibernating bear of an electorate might wake up angry.

Term limits are so popular 70 percent of the public approved the measure the first time it was on the ballot that anyone seen as against them, and, worse, trying to overturn an election, might be in that valley of political death.

A challenge will likely come about if a candidate files and Miller has to determine whether he is eligible; or the secretary of state is asked (soon?) for an interpretation, even if the issue is not ripe this cycle.

Ultimately, though, the state Supreme Court will be asked to determine legality. So you would have the high court, a different iteration of which split the term limits question to protect judges from being treated as mortal politicians, having to decide whether the strictures apply to everyone else. How delicious.

That could cost those justices their careers, just as tossing the constitutional provision requiring a supermajority vote on taxes shook up the court. But, I bet the Meddler in Chief and others figure, what are the political lives of a few justices in pursuit of such a noble cause?