Nevada State and Local Public Officer Term Limits, Question 9 (1994)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
Term Limits
Term limits.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

State legislative
term limits

term limits
Lieutenant Governors
term limits
Secretaries of State
term limits
Attorneys General
term limits
State executive
term limits
Nevada Constitution
Flag of Nevada.png
Preliminary ActionOrdinancePreamble1234567891011121314151617XVIII19Election Ordinance

The Nevada State and Local Public Officer Term Limits Question, also known as Question 9, was an initiated constitutional amendment in Nevada which was approved on the ballot on November 8, 1994. This amendment modified the Nevada Constitution to place term limits on state and local elected officials.[1]


Question 9 was split into two separate proposals 9A and 9B. 9A, regarding term limits for state and local public officers, was approved, while 9B, regard term limits for judges and justices, was defeated.

Election results

Nevada Question 9 (1994)
Approveda Yes 259,211 70.44%

Official results via: Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau - Research Division

Text of measure

The language that appeared on the ballot:

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to establish term limits for state and local public officers?[1][2]

Reports and analyses

The language that appeared in the voter's guide:[1]


Other than the office of governor, the Nevada Constitution currently places no limits on the number of terms to which state and local officers can be elected. This amendment would limit members of the state Assembly to serving twelve (12) years or six (6) terms in office. Members of the state Senate would be limited to serving twelve (12) years or three (3) terms in office. Justices of the Supreme Court, justices of the peace, and all other judges would be limited to two (2) terms. The Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, and the Attorney General would be limited to eight (8) years or two (2) terms. Other state officials and local governing body members would be limited to twelve (12) years. Appointment to an office for any amount of time would be equal to one (1) term.

Fiscal note

Fiscal Impact-No. The proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution would limit the terms of State and Local Officers. The proposal would have no adverse fiscal impact.[1]


Supporters argue term limits:[1]

  • Stop career politicians.
  • Potentially lessen influence of lobbyists and special interest groups by limiting interaction with any one elected official.
  • Allow for elected officials to focus on issues rather than re-election.
  • Allow more citizens to service.


Opponents argue term limits:[1]

  • Make it difficult to find qualified candidates.
  • Experiences elected officials will not be able to run again.
  • Elected officials that have been successful and been responsive to voters will not be able to run again.
  • Elected officials in their final terms will not be accountable to the voters.
  • Do not account for the fact that the Nevada State Legislature is a citizen legislature with a high turnover ratio.

Path to the ballot

  • In 1994, Nevada was one of five states (also including Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah) that sought to place term limits on local officials.[3]

See also

Suggest a link

External links


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau - Research Division, 1994 Ballot Question Guide with Election Results
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  3. "Colorado Legislative Council," An Analysis of 1994 Ballot Measure Proposal