Editor’s note: In July, the Clark County Charter Review Commission passed 10 amendments to be sent to the voter in the November General Election. One of those amendments was adopted by the Clark County Council, leaving nine to be determined by the voters.
Clark County Today wrote about all of the amendments back in July. In this updated series, Clark County Today is reposting highlights from those reports in July as well as noting some arguments for and against each amendment that appear in the Voters’ Pamphlet.
Proposed Charter Amendment No. 19: Limitation on consecutive terms for county council members
This would establish a limit of three consecutive terms for members of the Clark County Council.
Voters’ Pamphlet arguments for:
“Periodic open seat elections encourage a broader field of qualified candidates, giving voters more choices.”
“This amendment values experience gained through public service while making room for others to serve.”
“This is not a lifetime ban; former Council members may run again after one full term away from office.”
Voters’ Pamphlet argument against:
“Term limits: A Solution in Search of a Problem.”
“No Clark County Councilor or Commissioner has served more than two terms in 36 years. Voters, not the Charter, decided to remove those who overstayed their welcome.”
“Limiting a councilor to three consecutive terms restricts voter choice.”
Here is what Clark County Today reported in July when this amendment was passed by the commission:
This amendment was sponsored by Brandon Erickson, chair of the review commission. It passed 9-6.
Erickson acknowledged that some commissioners could have difficulty with this amendment because it only gives limits to the county council. He said he expects term limit amendments for the executive branch to be brought forward in the future, perhaps as early as next year.
“For commissioners who support broader term limits, Amendment 26-20 is an integral and important first step,” Erickson said.
“This amendment is supported by multiple current and former members of the county council, and that matters,” Erickson said in his statement. “People familiar with the office understand that periodic renewal is beneficial. This amendment strengthens public trust in the council as an institution. This amendment is forward thinking.
“I believe Clark County voters will support this amendment.”
One person in public comment who does not support term limits noted that it had been decades since a councilor served more than three consecutive terms.
Another person, who supports term limits, had a reply to that:
“We want to do that before there is an entrenched incumbent within county government, not wait for there to be an entrenched incumbent and then try to get rid of them,” the person said.
Comments
Loading comments…