My friend Sig Rogich and I disagree on the term limits issue. He was the author and chief proponent of Nevada’s term limits law in 1994 and I’ve always believed we already have term limits; they’re called “elections.” Conservatives of good conscience can disagree on this one.
That being said, he and I agree - for different reasons - that Nevada’s term limits law should apply equally to all elected officials who were on the ballot in 1996. For Sig’s part, he doesn’t believe anyone elected in 1996 should be subject to the term limits law which was passed that same year, telling Jon Ralston yesterday that the law’s effective date shouldn’t be until the 1998 election cycle. For my part, I’m OK with that interpretation; however, if the law is going to apply to SOME of those elected in 1996, then it ought to apply to ALL of those elected in 1996.
As it is right now, the Secretary of State is relying on an old Attorney General’s opinion to kick some local school board and county commission candidates who were elected in 1996 off the 2008 ballot citing the term limits law, while allowing state legislators elected in 1996 to remain on the ballot. My position mirror’s Rogich’s, who said yesterday, rightfully so, that “to hold some elected officials to the rule and not others, as is being discussed now, is absurd and completely contrary to the concept of equal protection of the law.”
So either let everyone who was elected in 1996 stay on the ballot…or kick everyone who was elected in 1996 off the ballot. Some politicians shouldn’t be more equal than others.
Posted on May 21st, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
Leave a Reply