The imposition of restrictions upon the right of a person to hold public office should receive a liberal construction in favor of the people exercising freedom of choice in the selection of their public officers. . . . If there be doubt or ambiguity in the provisions, the doubt or ambiguity must be resolved in favor of eligibility. The Florida court ruled the sheriff was eligible to seek reelection. The Nevada Supreme Court also favors this policy. The exercise of this right should not be declared prohibited or curtailed except by plain provisions of law.
Ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of eligibility to office. . . .
Statutes imposing qualifications should receive a liberal construction in favor of the right of the people to exercise freedom of choice in the selection of officers. . . . The Nevada court ruled the successful candidate was a qualified elector and did not need to be registered to vote to be eligible to hold office. The Nevada Supreme Court has twice recently reaffirmed this policy. This ambiguity must be resolved in favor of eligibility to run for reelection. You have suggested that NRS 266.230 only applies to appointive offices created or which had the salary increased during the councilmember's term of office.