A lawyer purportedly representing a constituent in Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio’s (R-Reno) district filed a lawsuit seeking to kick the longtime Republican leader off the ballot, claiming he has exceeded the 12-year term limit passed by voters in 1996. This is a similar suit which has also been filed separately against Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley (D-Las Vegas).
What’s particularly interesting is this paragraph from the lawsuit:
“Lest there be any doubt on this score, the present challenge is NOT a reflection on the quality of Mr. Raggio’s service, solely its duration. The voters have spoken, and term limits are now an inexorable fact of political life in Nevada. Hence Mr. Raggio’s political longevity has expired. That, and that alone, is the basis for the present proceeding, which is meant to compel a timely exit as the capstone to a distinguished career.”
The voters have spoken.
Of course, that’s the best argument AGAINST term limit laws. The voters, by going to the polls on election day, ARE the term limiters. An artificial term limit law actually BLOCKS voters from speaking by denying them the opportunity to vote for certain individuals who otherwise meet all the eligibility requirements for a particular office.
Yes, the voters have spoken, but out of both sides of their mouths.
In two election cycles, voters said they wanted to artificially limit the length of time any legislator can spend in office to 12 years. Yet in 17 successive elections over a span of 34 years, the voters of Sen. Raggio’s district said they wanted Sen. Raggio representing them in the Nevada Legislature. And if THEY, the voters of Sen. Raggio’s district, wish to elect him once again to represent them in 2008, they should have the right to do so.
And that goes for Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley’s constituents, as well.
Posted on June 27th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
money talks and voters, well they don’t seem to get the connection on an election by election campaign, but overall, they’re pretty smart…money controls the process, so after 12 years, it’s back to being a civillian again,and isn’t that really how the whole system was intendeded to run? Yes it was. bye-bye and thanks for your service!
Your usual lucid and logical approach to things fails in this instance. You are clearly just trying to get a long-time ally, Bill Raggio, a few more years in the saddle. Bill may be a good guy, but you used the same old line of “let the voters decide” for the term limit issue. I hope you were just kidding when you said that because the voters DID decide. They decided they wanted term limits. So you are saying “what a conumdrum, they vote for term limits, yet they continue to vote for Bill”. You say this despite the fact that you know the real reason. For those of you who are confused, here is the story.
Voters do not want to unilaterally give up the leverage their representative has in the legislature, congress or whatever office unless others do so also. It is the old school-house dilemma of how to stop two kids from fighting when neither will put their fists down first. You count to three and both do it at the same time. That is the principal here. People are smart enough to realize that politicians who stay in office too long become too powerful because they are bought and paid for by the same controlling interests. They are then no longer responsive to their constituents beyond tossing a few bones their way. Nevertheless, the voting public are not brave enough to give up the leverage they think they have when their guy gets a lot of seniority. Term limits allow us to count to three and have everyone play by the same rules. It is a great idea and probably the only way to break free of the special interest hammerlock, at least a little bit. It is clear that voters do not want stale politicians in office, so term limits are a great way to make that happen in a measured, fair manner. Term limits are good because nobody is brave enough to unilaterally sacrifice their perceived position, even for the good of the country (or the State). Besides, our history of uncontrolled budgets, unreasonable estimates of revenue, and large “surprise” deficits proves that the existing system of lifetime politicians does not work. It makes sense to try something that does work….term limits.
So, Chuck, please tell it like it is instead of trotting out the same old party line we have heard over and over and over again. The electorate has spoken and politicians are honor-bound to listen. If Bill was honorable, he would step down on his own, but I know the money guys are pushing him to stay in. Like the good party guy he has always been, he is listening to his handlers over his honor. This, Chuck, is why we need term limits. By the way, the corrupted Supreme Court completely abandoned the Constitution when they ignored a clear mandate from the people to impose term limits on their States’ representatives to the Federal Government. I defy anyone to point out in the Constitution where it says that the State cannot limit terms to their own elected officials. It is simply an example of the corrupted system we allow to proliferate. If our Federal representatives were honorable, they would simply step down after 12 years……but none of them do. Clearly, the desire of the voting public means nothing to these people.
By the way, it is very telling that you rail about Bill, yet include Barbara Buckley as a footnote. It is clear that republican candidates are suing Barbara to get her to step down. If you were so intersted in the principal, you would be busy railing on the republicans to stop this process immediately, no matter what the democrats are doing. That is, if this were truly an argument of principal. Clearly, it is not. It is just a ploy to get a “win” for the party even if it means a “loss” for the people. I am not surprised at this attitude, but dissapointed that you took it. It really damages your usual repuation as a straight shooter.
Steve, this is a pile of crap. I’ve ALWAYS opposed term limits…as a matter of principle.
Term limits is an artificial mechanism which relieves voters of the responsibility of making an INFORMED decision in the election booth. It’s a lazy man’s way out of actually researching candidates and issues.
And in case you missed it, I ditched the GOP over a year ago. To suggest a “partisan” bias here is…well, as I stated in the beginning…a pile of crap.
I realize that, Chuck. I was just hoping for a more objective debate. I took the time to detail my logic and I was hoping you would do the same. “This is a pile of crap” is a little skimpy in detail.
It was all that was necessary or appropriate.