The Nevada Supreme Court was told Monday there is nothing unconstitutional about term limits, but that the way the mandate was passed in Nevada was so flawed the amendment must be thrown out.
"We are not arguing term limits is unconstitutional," said Kevin Powers of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. "We're challenging the manner in which it was approved."
Voters approved term limits for almost all public officers in Nevada in 1994 and 1996, making the 12-year limit part of the state constitution. Now that 12 years have elapsed, the attorney general and secretary of state have demanded more than two dozen long-serving public officials be removed from this year's ballot. When district attorneys in the two largest counties refused, saying term limits don't actually kick in until the next election, the state took the issue to the supreme court.
It was the high court itself that raised the constitutional question, calling for arguments on the constitutionality of the Nevada amendment and the manner in which it was approved by voters.
Chief Justice Mark Gibbons told the audience of state officials and lawyers the case puts all other court business on hold until they make a decision.
The high court took the case under submission with Gibbons promising a ruling as soon as possible.
