Clark County Proposed Charter Amendment No. 19

Labels are based on a detector's reading of the text and are not a claim about the author.

The statements in this pamphlet are printed exactly as submitted. No spelling, grammatical, or other corrections have been made.

Hide highlighting appears humanappears AI-editedappears AI

Statement For · Dorothy Gasque

statement appears partly AI

Committee: Brandon Erickson, Chair

More Choices. Fresh Voices. Amendment 19 brings local term limits to the Clark County Council by limiting members to three consecutive terms. Periodic open seat elections encourage a broader field of qualified candidates, giving voters more choices. New Council members add different perspectives and strengthen the Council’s connection to Clark County residents. Experience Still Matters This amendment values experience gained through public service while making room for others to serve. Twelve years gives Council members ample time to learn the job, represent residents, provide steady leadership, build relationships, and complete major work. This is not a lifetime ban: former Council members may run again after one full term away from office. Voters Decide. More Citizens Serve. Voters decide whether to establish this limit and continue choosing who serves in each election. Amendment 19 simply limits how many consecutive terms a person may serve on the Council. The amendment expands public service opportunities and prevents long term incumbency from becoming a problem on the County Council. Clear Rules. Same Council Role. The amendment establishes clear rules that apply equally to Council members. Changing Council positions does not restart the count. Current service and earlier terms served without a break count toward the limit. The Council remains Clark County’s elected legislative body with the same powers and responsibilities. Vote to approve Amendment 19 and bring reasonable term limits to Clark County.

Rebuttal of argument against

County records show Commissioner Betty Sue Morris served three consecutive terms (1996 to 2008). Opponents say Councilors need one term to learn. Amendment 19 allows three terms, up to 12 years. That is ample time to serve and lead. Staggered terms preserve institutional knowledge. Long incumbencies deepen special interest ties and discourage challengers. Open seats enhance democratic choice. Only consecutive terms are limited. After a full term away, voters may return a former Councilor.

Statement Against · Liz Cline

statement appears human

Committee: Morgan Holmgren, Chair

We ask the voters of Clark County to reject term limits on County Councilors and vote No. Voters should continue to decide whom to reelect to the Clark County Council. Term Limits: A Solution in Search of a Problem Clark County Councilors are elected to four-year terms. At that time, each councilor faces voters and makes their case for reelection. 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. Term Limits Empower Special Interests The County Council makes important decisions on a broad range of issues: taxation, land use, transportation, and public health. Councilors need at least one term to learn the complexities of their role. Term limits reduce the institutional knowledge shared by returning councilors. As a result, councilors might rely more on outside interest groups or executive branch officials to guide their decision-making. These people do not face term limits and in some cases never face the voters. Term Limits Ignore Voter Preferences Limiting a councilor to three consecutive terms restricts voter choice. Popular councilors who represent the people well may earn another term; unresponsive councilors may not. In this way, elections hold councilors accountable. A lame duck – an official who can’t be reelected because of term limits – may not work to represent voters. When a councilor does a poor job, the voters should decide their political future. Vote No on Proposed Amendment 19.

Rebuttal of argument for

The proponents say “Voters Decide,” but term limits do the opposite: they prevent voters from reelecting an experienced Councilor they believe is doing a good job. We already have competitive elections and regular Council turnover. No evidence is offered that long-term incumbency is a problem or that forced turnover produces better government. Elections provide accountability while preserving voter choice. Don’t replace the judgment of the voters with an arbitrary twelve-year limit. Vote No!