You won’t hear us at Various Things & Stuff say very often that Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell has a point. Other than open records, open meetings and open bottles of fine wine, he and we don’t agree on much.

But after checking out Mitchell’s Sunday column, we have to confess: The guy may have a point on this term limits thing.

While the rest of us have been debating whether the measure was approved in a constitutional way –  which, by the way, is still very much in dispute — Mitchell argues that the plain language of the initiative made it clear that term limits in Nevada were retroactive, limiting even those holding office at the time the measure was approved to a total of 12 years in any elected office.

Why does he say that? Check out the plain language now enshrined in Article 4, Sections 3 and 4 of the Nevada Constitution:

No person may be elected or appointed as a member of the Assembly 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, from any district of this State. (emphasis added)

Got that? It could reasonably be read to conclude that, if Senator X had been elected to two terms (eight years) before 1996, and was running for re-election in that year, he could only be elected to one more term, for a total of 12 years, before being banned for life from serving in the state Senate. And if Assemblywoman Y had already served six terms (12 years) before 1996 and was getting ready to run for re-election in 1998, well, she would be banned by the constitutional amendment.

So why have lawmakers who had decades of service before the 1996 final approval of term limits continued to serve? Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa ruled that unless the framers of a constitutional amendment declare specifically they intend the measure to be retroactive, it is only applied prospectively. So that meant the term limits clock “started ticking” in 1996, when the measure was certified, not at the beginning of a person’s 12 years of service in the Senate or Assembly. (By the way, the same language applies to local government officials, too.)

But how else are we to interpret the italicized portion in the law, above, if not to conclude the framers intended it to apply retroactively, and take effect immediately? Term limits backer Sig Rogich told Mitchell that term limits weren’t supposed to start until 1998, but it’s possible he’s now covering for his old buddy Bruce Woodbury, the longest-serving county commissioner in Nevada who may very well see his career end this year because of how term limits are interpreted.

But this retroactivity is an intriguing concept. If, as Mitchell believes, some lawmakers have been serving illegally, could their votes and public acts be invalid? Could tax increases, controversial laws and state business transacted by lawmakers serving beyond their 12 years be void? Shouldn’t all those with 12 years of service in a single office be banned from seeking re-election and forced from office immediately?

Not so fast: Mitchell’s interpretation presumes term limits were approved constitutionally. We don’t think they were, so this is merely an academic exercise. Unless…

Unless the state Supreme Court determines term limits are constitutional, which we think it will, and very soon. In that case, the Mitchell interpretation must be considered, which would mean plenty of people with more than 12 years under their belts right now are banned from running again.

It’s quite a dilemma. We wonder if perhaps the court will sidestep it entirely, upholding term limits, but setting the “start date” at the certification of the election in November 1996. That would screw local officials such as Woodbury, but allow state lawmakers to go around one more time. We’re guessing that’s what will happen.

But you have to admit, Mitchell does have a point.