The state Supreme Court's term limits decision on Friday was hardly a surprise. The court ruled that the term limit amendment was properly approved and in so doing, side-stepped its own role in changing the amendment's language between passages to exempt the judicial branch from the measure's reach. Similarly, the court's decision to exclude local elected officials from seeking office again, while upholding the right of state legislators to run in 2008 was not unexpected. Nonetheless, the episode was revealing on a couple of fronts.

First and as been discussed prior in this space, the whole mess demonstrates the frailty of the ballot initiative process as a means to craft public policy. Pushed by interest groups, often times from out of state, ballot measures tend to be poorly written and full of unintended consequences.

Inevitably the courts are asked to intervene and sort out the problems, inconsistencies and other uncertainties that the process engenders. In this case, the timing of the court challenge could not have been worse coming after the filing deadline. Who knows what candidates might have decided to run if they knew they did not have to face sure winners such as Bruce Woodbury or Thalia Dondero?

Second, the roles that Secretary of State Ross Miller and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto played in the legal wrangling were interesting. Up to this point, both had kept low profiles since being elected in 2006 and had managed to avoid getting tangled up in the politically sensitive aspects of their jobs. Thus, it was ironic or perhaps inevitable in such a politically incestuous state as Nevada that the second generation of two of the state's prominent families had a hand in hastening the retirements of some of the oldest of the state's old guard.

So at least for the near foreseeable future Nevada is stuck with term limits. Like virtually every other social scientist familiar with the academic literature in this area, I am no fan. Or as Ed Constantini, an old professor of mine, use to bellow: "We already have term limits; they are called regularly scheduled elections!"

A central tenant of Madisonian democracy is to check the self-interested nature of ambitious politicians, elected officials should be kept on tight leashes by requiring that they regularly gain the support of their constituents to continue holding their jobs.

Despite the manner in which incumbents stack the electoral deck in their favor, elections work quite well in sorting the good from the bad. This is a point that congressional Republicans learned first hand in 2006. Closer to home, Myrna Williams was ousted by voters largely for having served along with other corrupt county commissioners. The now indicted Lynette Boggs also lost her seat on the Clark County Commission in 2006 due to allegations of corruption. Moreover, the threat of election for an ethically challenged elected official often provides sufficient motivation for a strategic retirement.

In short, term limits are far too blunt of an instrument to filter elected officials in an effective manner. Indeed, the implicit assumption underlying such measures is that public service for an extended period of time is in and of itself a bad thing and therefore, no one should be allowed to do it for more than some predetermined number of years (so much for that libertarian spirit!). In reality, such a one-size-fits-all mindset deprives decision making bodies of an irreplaceable resource: institutional memory. This is particularly important for a legislature with few resources like Nevada's. The mass exodus of experienced elected officials means that knowledge and influence will flow elsewhere (e.g., staff and lobbyists).

Proponents of term limits often downplay these concerns by arguing that any loss of expertise is a small cost to pay for greater electoral competition. Certainly it is true that open seats tend to draw better quality candidates and result in more competitive races. However laudable this goal may be, it is accomplished by depriving voters from the very act that voting is suppose to offer: Free choice. By prohibiting certain individuals, particularly those who in many cases are the most qualified, from running for office, voters are denied the right to choose among all viable options; a dynamic that means that voters may end up getting inferior representation to the status quo.

Moreover, if the goal of term limits is to facilitate greater electoral competition, there are better and more subtle ways to achieve this end. Two reforms that spring immediately to mind are changes to the redistricting process and public financing.

Giving self interested politicians the power to draw electoral districts results in a process where elected officials effectively choose their voters instead of the other way around. The consequence of creating so many safe districts is that primary challenges are a bigger concern than general elections and incumbents become hostages to the fringes of their parties instead of the views of a majority of their constituents. Other states have taken this power and its inherent conflict of interest away from politicians and put it in the hands of either independent commissions or judges. Not surprisingly, these states tend to have higher proportions of competitive seats.

Public financing that provides all qualified candidates with a floor of money facilitates more campaign dialogue and helps to offset, in part, the resource advantages associated with incumbency. Races characterized by two-way information flows are advantageous because they tend to facilitate greater voting learning and more issue based campaigns.

Of course, I am under no illusion that either reform would be seriously considered or have any resonance in the Silver State. But being someone who makes a living studying American politics, I will advise that when it comes to tinkering with Mr. Madison's model, the lighter the touch, the better.

David Damore is a political scientist at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.