Anybody who has been inside a courtroom knows its risky to predict the outcome of a case based only on the questions that judges ask attorneys. But we’re pretty sure that, based on the Supreme Court’s grilling of lawyers on either side of the term limits question, that term limits are here to stay!

Legislative Counsel Bureau attorney Kevin Powers did his very best to argue Question 9, approved in 1994, was so riddled with confusion that voters could not possibly have known what they were voting on. For example, he said, there was no definition in the explanation of the measure about what a “local governing body” was. That could include anything from the city council to the mosquito abatement district, he said.

“There’s no way the voter would have known the breadth and scope of this initiative,” Powers said.

Oh, and another thing: It wasn’t clear to the voters if the measure imposed a lifetime term limit ban — like the one in place for president or governor — or if lawmakers could sit out a term and then come back to serve another 12 years. (The Legislative Counsel Bureau, after much research, concluded it was a lifetime ban.)

Finally, he argued, the Nevada Supreme Court’s splitting of the measure into two separate questions — one for executive and legislative branch term limits, another for judges — was unconstitutional, since the constitution requires that initiatives to amend the constitution be on the ballot in the “same manner” in two consecutive elections, and the 1994 version and 1996 version were dissimilar.
But Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto shot back with some major legal mojo: Since the measure is now part of the constitution, it’s presumed to be legal and constitutional, which means the Legislature has a high bar to get it struck down. And it didn’t meet that bar because:

1. Waiting 12 years to challenge the constitutionality of the measure was too long.
2. Voters would be prejudiced if the law is struck down, because they’d have to start all over again.
3. The explanation didn’t have to address every single office affected by term limits; if a voter had a question, he or she needed only to read the text, which contained a list of the affected offices.
4. The fact that Question 9 imposed a lifetime ban was clear from the text.
5. The Nevada Supreme Court already said the 1996 split of the question into two was legal and constitutional.
6. Even if that split wasn’t, the term limits for local and state officials were approved in the exact same manner in two consecutive elections.
7. Voters have a right to expect their wishes would be enacted by the court.

We’ve got to say: She’s pretty good, people.

And if Cortez Masto wasn’t enough, enter the formidable Dominic Gentile, representing Regent Steve Sisolak, who is desperately trying to get veteran Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury off the ballot, since Sisolak covets Woodbury’s seat.

Voters misled? Where’s the proof? Gentile asked. Where are the polls, or surveys or even a single affidavit of a voter saying he or she didn’t understand what was on the ballot in 1994? The Legislature has had 14 years to find proof, he said, but came only with arguments and speculation.

“If there was a problem with the elective process, they knew it in 1994,” he said. And what about the 196,343 people who voted no? Were they somehow not confused? If so, why did they get it but the pro-term limits voters didn’t?

“I suggest to you what you’re seeing is a finagle,” he said. And he should know, since he recently looked that word up.

And isn’t it interesting that not a single lawmaker has emerged to challenge term limits personally? The Legislative Counsel Bureau, which represents the entire Legislature, spoke instead for the interests of lawmakers.

(Then again, if lawmakers can be implicitly accused of cowardice for not challenging the law themselves, what does that say about Sisolak, who is explicitly challenging Woodbury’s candidacy because he knows full well he couldn’t beat the Boulder City Republican in a stand-up electoral fight?)

Georlen Spangler went next, representing Kevin Child, who is challenging Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley in November. (Unlike Sisolak, who has a good chance at a commission seat with Woodbury off  the ballot, it’s not entirely clear if Child could win even if Buckley was erased.)

Why did the Legislative Counsel Bureau not raise the issue of unclear or confusion language when the petition was being circulated? she asked. And she fixated on the inevitable assumption that underlay Powers’s arguments: “I was here then [in 1994]. I voted. I don’t think I’m stupid,” she said.

“Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights,” she said. Lawmakers are hoping the court strikes down term limts, she said, but aren’t willing to stick their necks out and risk voter wrath. Why, do you think could she have been suggesting to the judges that if they stick their black-robed necks out, they might experience voter wrath? We think so.

Powers restated a few points in rebuttal, the strongest of which was noting that the Wyoming Supreme Court allowed a term-limits challenge 11 years after the fact, since the measure had not yet taken effect. That’s similar to Nevada, where no one has (yet) been forced off the ballot.

Again, reading questions is tricky, but based on the strength of the arguments and some fairly prominent holes in Powers’s case, we’re betting the court upholds Nevada’s term limits, saves themselves the grief of voter wrath and says goodbye this year to some local officials, if not state lawmakers like Buckley. That’s just a guess, and worth precisely what you pay to read this blog.

Finally, here’s our simple argument against term limits, which the justices are free to consider: Voters in 1994 clearly intended all officials in Nevada — legislative, executive and judicial — to be term-limited by the same simple amendment to the constitution. Their will was thwarted, and the constitution violated, when that question was molested by the court and split into two in 1996. Yes, you can argue the voters were allowed to attenuate their will when the court gave them the choice to separately rule on judges, but how could you not argue further that perhaps the voters intended to limit only the Assembly and Senate, and, given the chance, would have also exempted city council and county commissions? The fact is, there were not given that chance; they put everybody in one initiative, and that’s how it should have stayed. Voters choose in virtually every election to take the good with the bad (say, voting for Hillary Clinton for president, even if you don’t like her vote for the Iraq War). The court frustrated clear all-or-nothing voter intent in 1994, and thus the whole thing should be tossed.

Of course, that’s easy for us to say. We’re not on the court. Or in office.

We see that state Sen. Dina Titus has unfortunately given in to the pro-drilling oilmongers, and embraced the stance that the federal ban on offshore oil drilling should be lifted, shifting the decision about whether to allow the practice to the states.

Titus is running for Congress against U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, who has the same position on offshore drilling.

As we’ve said before, we don’t much care if Florida or Louisiana or Texas allows offshore drilling. But we absolutely refuse to accept offshore drilling along the coastline of our beloved home state, California. And we’ll continue to hold this position, at least until the oil companies can guarantee there are halfway competent sailors aboard their big oil tankers. (Click that last link; you’ll see what we’re saying.)

If you were to visit the great city of Huntington Beach, Calif., (and you should; it’s great) you’d notice several offshore oil drilling platforms up and running now. That’s bad enough, without allowing new drilling, especially since oil companies have access to thousands of acres of drilling sites now they aren’t even using!

So, Dina Titus, keep your laws on our state! No drilling, at least off California.

UPDATE: As if on cue, we’ve just learned (at 8:32 a.m. on Monday, July 14) that President George W. Bush will announce he intends to lift the longstanding executive order banning offshore oil drilling. So that means Titus and Bush are on the same page. We can hardly think of a better reason for her to reconsider her stance.

Not of anything we’ve written, of course. Most everything we write is correct.

But in today’s Review-Journal story nakedly attempting to bully the state Supreme Court into sustaining Nevada’s term limits, there’s a paragraph that caught our attention. Check it:

The case has drawn almost as much attention as the court’s 2003 ruling that legislators did not have to follow a constitutional amendment that tax increases need a two-thirds positive vote in the Legislature before they can go into effect.

That ruling, sought by Gov. Kenny Guinn, led to lawmakers approving a record $833 million in tax increases.

Voters did not forget that decision. Justice Nancy Becker went down to defeat the next time she ran.

Four other justices decided to retire at the end of their terms rather than risk another election.

Did you catch the glaring mistake in the above? If not, it’s this: Guinn most certainly did not seek a ruling in which the Legislature didn’t have to follow the two-thirds amendment!

Here’s what really happened (which we know, because we were present for the 2003 debacle): With the Legislature deadlocked over approving a package of new taxes, and the school year looming without a completed budget, Guinn sued the Legislature, asking the court force lawmakers to do their constitutionally mandated jobs and pass a budget. He didn’t mention how he wanted that done, only that it should be done. And while rejecting the two-thirds constitutional amendment was advocated by other parties to the lawsuit, it was not an option ever embraced by Guinn.

But the court, in its own wisdom, ruled that the Legislature didn’t have to follow the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes, a despicable and judicially unsound ruling that was later overturned in a footnote to an unrelated decision. The ruling was so controversial at the time, the Legislature didn’t even take advantage of it, finally mustering a two-thirds vote in a special session to raise taxes. (Oh, if you answered our “what’s wrong with this story” question by saying that it was inaccurate to claim the ruling led to the tax vote, we’ll give you partial credit for that as well.)