Stop us before we vote again!

Some woman up yonder says she can run for the school board as many times as she wants because term limits don't apply to her. AP

Like virtually everyone else in the U.S., Nevadans voted to limit terms of elected officials in the 1990s amidst an exhilarating era of Ross Perot-packed, Newt Gingrich-approved reform.  The ostensible argument had something to do with entrenched politicians becoming elitist and out of touch with the little people if they stayed in office too long blahblahblah, but the fundamental point was that if voters embraced a cheap and simple gimmick then they could pretend they had done something in the way of civic responsibility without actually ever having to pay attention.

It's not clear whether Jonnie Pullman, the Washoe County school board member who has made all sorts of people uncomfortable by seeking re-election, is brazenly defying overwhelming popular/populist sentiment in a deliberate challenge to term limits, or if she merely lost track of how many terms she has served.

But it doesn't matter.

The important thing is that voter-imposed term limits are wonderful as they represent a rare moment of electoral candor wherein voters freely acknowledge that they're a bunch of idiots who can't be trusted and who, left to their own devices, will just keep doing the same stupid stuff over and over again.

Comments

[IronJawed]

Excellent post, Mr. Gleaner.

And to continue the theme: California overturns gay marriage ban.

[X]

NEvada Constitution
ARTICLE. 15. - Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 3. Eligibility for public office.

1. No person shall be eligible to any office who is not a qualified elector under this Constitution.

2. No person may be elected to any state office or local governing body who has served in that office, or at the expiration of his current term if he is so serving will have served, 12 years or more, unless the permissible number of terms or duration of service is otherwise specified in this Constitution.

[theo]

IJ - isn't it discouraging that my rights are non-existent here, but if I jump in my car and drive 50 miles to cross the state line, now I can get married?

[texexnv@gmail.com]

Yes, Theo, and conversely they can drive 50 miles and get a prostitute. Seems like we could use the revenue right no by applying the same economics to gay marriage as we do to prostitution. It makes sense only here.

[IronJawed]

That's exactly right, Texex. We could make a mint in Nevada if we were to legalize gay marriage.

[kickboxermomma]

California is able to do many things that other States can't do because laws, regulations are deemed unconstitutional based on the California Constitution not the U.S. Constitution.The California Constitution is far more expansive of rights than the U.S. Constitution. This decision won't be able to be overturned because of a State's Rights issue. However if the decision had be based on the U.S. Constitutionthe Supreme Court could review it and overturn it. NOw the fun part will be: what about comity? Will other States and the Federal government honor a marriage of a gay couple entered into in California? Not as black and white as it may seem.

[CJ]

No other states, other than Mass will honor a CA marriage license. That is, until they get sued and lose a discrimination lawsuit brought by couples who have gone to CA and gotten a liscense, and had it denied valid by the local government. Thus the lawsuit.

The SCOTUS will be the final arbiter of this debate but momentum is now on the side of equality for gay and lesbian couples. And now good gay folks: go to CA and get married, and if you go to SF,let Gavin know he's got worshipers in NV.

[Judy]

There are other elected positions that the state has not imposed the term limit ban on. Should prove interesting to see if the rurals can come up with some reason why they should not have to be held to Nevada law in this case.

[ditchin swork]

Judy,
What state or local governing office is exempted? Judges are, but they aren't intended to be 'governing'.

Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section. 1. Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]

I'd say that shit in Section 21 is unconstitutional under US

[Ken]

This is quite possibly the best blog post I have EVER read. I never understood the need for term limits because isn't that why we have elections in the first place? I always try to understand what the specific issues are and what the candidate's position is. It almost always leads to me pulling the lever for a Democrat (except when Dario Herrera ran for Congress - I just voted None of the Above Then).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...