The shrapnel flying over term limits

Friday, May 23, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.

Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, whose career may be terminated before he gets his 30 years in, says 2010.

Spinmeister Sig Rogich, who launched Woodbury’s distinguished career by whispering in an appointing governor’s ear 27 years ago, says 2010.

And others potentially affected by term limits, including school board members and regents, also say 2010.

Indeed, since term limits were passed in 1996 after being proposed by Rogich, most everyone thought the clock didn’t start ticking until 1998, causing the first casualties in 2010. But don’t include Secretary of State Ross Miller and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who have wound the clock ahead and set off a political time bomb that could hurl shrapnel far and wide. Miller, with Cortez Masto providing the legitimacy for his actions, is trying to boot Woodbury and others, saying that most everyone has misinterpreted a 12-year-old opinion by then-Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa.

You remember her? She’s the attorney general who once came up with what past Gov. Grant Sawyer remarked to me was quite the tortured definition of “years” to ensure then-Gov. Bob Miller could serve what some saw as a constitutionally prohibited third term. (Miller had served the last half of Richard Bryan’s term when the latter went to the U.S. Senate, and then won election to two terms on his own, the second after Del Papa opined he could run.)

Indeed, the ex-attorney general may be singularly responsible for more history-changing moves than anyone in state annals — crafting the controversial Miller opinion that made him the state’s longest-serving governor, not running against Kenny Guinn for governor after being ahead by 20 points in polls, not running for a U.S. Senate seat against John Ensign that she might have won and, now, offering a term limit opinion whose interpretation could rearrange the political matrix.

As happens only in this world, the maneuvers have spawned all manner of conspiracy theories, including the notion that Miller is doing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bidding so term limits eventually can be undone by the state Supreme Court. Cue the ominous music.

The opinion itself is as clear as a Jim Gibbons disquisition on hydrology. Penned by Del Papa deputy Kateri Cavin a few weeks before term limits passed, its analysis ended with this: “Since the effective date of the petition would be November 27, 1996 (the day the vote became official), the term limitations will not apply to affected officials elected in the 1996 general election. If approved, term limits would be in effect for the 1997 municipal elections, and the 1998 primary and general elections, and so on.”

So there you have it, right? Not quite.

The next paragraph, under the “Conclusion” rubric, says: “If the voters approve the initiative to limit terms of state and local officers in the general election in November 1996 only periods of service commencing after November 27, 1996, will be counted as a term for limitation purposes.”

That’s clear, too, because the “periods of service” for those elected in 1996 begin in 1997 when they are sworn into office. So therein lies the rub — and it is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way.

The only way to thread the legal needle here is to argue that the term “affected officials” cited at the end of the analysis refers to everyone but state lawmakers, who are by law deemed to take office the day they are elected. They are in a special class here, that is, above everyone else, treated differently from everyone else? I bet the public will love that explanation.

This will be a feast for lawyers, who will raise equal protection claims because of the Gang of 63’s exalted status. And one lawyer who will have a say is District Attorney David Roger, who has to decide whether he should take the venerable Woodbury and others to court to try to oust them. And if he doesn’t, what does the attorney general do then — just say the process has taken its course or stand up for the legal plank she has pushed Miller out on?

I am no lawyer, just an observer both marveling and scoffing at the fine legal mess that has been created here by a placebo fed to rabid anti-incumbent voters 12 years ago by a man (Rogich) who has put as many incumbents into office as anyone in state annals. It’s a bad idea whose time has come, either now or two years from now — unless of course the Supreme Court tosses the entire idea, which is really what Reid and others, now including the blindsided Woodbury, hope will occur.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By HelenWeils

5/23/08 at 7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

I'm sure that is what Jon would like too. Let the incumbents rule forever. Status quo.
It makes me sick.
By NVMakz

5/23/08 at 8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why can't these politicians re-enter society and contribute in other ways.

I think 18-20 years is enough for anyone. Blocks new blood as well if every politician "wants" to reign forever.

"Liberty is refreshed often by the "blood" of Patriots" - or however that saying goes == cries out for SOME term limits and let's get some turnover in Politics.....
By That_Anonymous_Guy

5/23/08 at 10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here's an idea -- if you don't like the job an incumbent is doing, VOTE HIM OUT.

If you think he's been in office too long, VOTE HIM OUT.

But don't presume to tell me, as a voter, that I am prohibited from voting for someone because you think he's "been in office too long" (whatever that means).

Term limits are beyond stupid. They presume that voters are powerless to remove incumbents. That is misleading and insulting. More informed voters are the solution, not blanket term limits.

I'd be more than happy to let Bruce Woodbury stay in office as long as he wants. The guy is honest, ethical and competent, which is a heck of a lot more than we can say about many elected officials in this state.
By Incredulous

5/23/08 at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

My heart would not break to see "venerable" Bruce Woodbury pushed out of office right now. There's a tradition among the County Commissioners that if the "local guy" supports a residential development project, variances and all, the other Commissioners are not going to oppose him.

So "venerable" Bruce Woodbury filled the area of Clark County south of the 215 and west of the 15 with houses on incredibly undersized lots, wedged together, cheek by jowl. Some of them have back yards only 3' deep. Those "slums of the future" have no parks or playgrounds, and not enough room to park the cars of their occupants. Thousands of those homes are in foreclosure. Hundreds of them sit unsold, both before and after foreclosure, because no one really wants to own and live in one.

Ten years from now, when the "New Southwest" is a 100% gang infested combat zone, with a massive burglary and car theft rate, we can all thank Bruce Woodbury for his "service" to his district.

Even though it is in Bruce Woodbury's district, the creation of "slums of the future" didn't happen in Henderson, because they did not reduce their development standards. And of course Bruce Woodbury lives in Boulder City, which has the toughest development standards in Southern Nevada.

Perhaps in contemplating re-election, Bruce Woodbury would consider joining us, by buying a 2,000 square foot home on a 3,500 square foot lot, actually living in it, and parking his car in his undersized driveway so his "neighbors" can break into it. And perhaps Bruce Woodbury would like to walk the streets of "his district" near Warm Springs and Jones around midnight, trying to stroll to his neighborhood Albertson's without being mugged. And perhaps he'd like to help his neighbors by maintaining the front lawns and bushes of all of the houses he approved which are now vacant and in foreclosure.

No, I think Bruce Woodbury is too cozy and safe down in Boulder City. I am absolutely convinced that this "last minute" discovery that he cannot run for re-election is a trick which has been arranged by the political powers that be, to put another stooge in Bruce Woodbury's seat without leaving ANY opportunity for ANY legitimate candidates to file to run for the vacant seat.
By sfiver

5/23/08 at 3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

I think Helen is correct - they should "rule forever." Other than a virtual handful of elected representatives - they are all the same anyway. They are all pawns of the megaresorts and mining industries. That is why it is so important that everyone makes the vote. Term Limits can be exercised on election day (or early voting, whatever you prefer). Furthermore, too many candidates are on the ballot. We should consider appointing judges, school board members, university regents, constables, the sheriff and some other offices. I also support having the legislature meet once a year considering the state has more than 2 million people. Incidentally, I never knew that legislators become incumbents on election day. I always thought it was January 1st following the election - maybe it is just for governor and the higher offices? Thank you, Jon!
By williamtomany1

5/24/08 at 6 p.m.

Suggest removal

by by Bruce. The law caught up with you and a bunch more