Cook v. Gralike
149 L. Ed. 2d 44, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 1953, 121 S. Ct. 1029 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's power to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner" of congressional elections under the Elections Clause is limited to procedural regulations and does not grant the authority to enact laws designed to influence electoral outcomes by placing pejorative labels on the ballot to disadvantage a class of candidates.
Facts:
- In 1996, Missouri voters passed Article VIII, an amendment to their state constitution.
- Article VIII instructed members of Missouri's congressional delegation to use their powers to pass a specific 'Congressional Term Limits Amendment'.
- The amendment required the statement 'DISREGARDED VOTERS’ INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS' to be printed on the ballot next to the name of any incumbent member of Congress who failed to take specific legislative actions supporting the proposed federal amendment.
- The amendment also required the statement 'DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS' to be printed on the ballot next to the name of any nonincumbent candidate who refused to take a pledge to support the term limits amendment.
- The Missouri Secretary of State was tasked with determining whether these labels should be printed alongside each candidate's name.
- Don Gralike was a nonincumbent candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives who did not want to take the pledge required by Article VIII.
Procedural Posture:
- Don Gralike sued the Secretary of State of Missouri in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Article VIII.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Gralike, holding that Article VIII was unconstitutional.
- The Secretary of State of Missouri, as petitioner, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Article VIII unconstitutional on several grounds.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state constitutional amendment that requires placing adverse labels on the ballot next to the names of congressional candidates who fail to support a specific term limits amendment exceed the state's authority under the Elections Clause of Article I, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, the state constitutional amendment exceeds the state's authority under the Elections Clause. A state's power to regulate federal elections is delegated by the Constitution, not reserved under the Tenth Amendment, because these federal offices did not exist prior to the Constitution's creation. The Elections Clause grants states the power to regulate only the procedural 'Manner' of elections, such as notices, registration, and vote counting. It does not provide the power to 'dictate electoral outcomes' or 'favor or disfavor a class of candidates.' Missouri's Article VIII is not a procedural regulation; it is designed to handicap candidates who do not support the state's preferred policy on term limits, thereby attempting to influence the election's outcome, which is beyond the scope of the Elections Clause.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the Missouri law is unconstitutional. The fundamental principle is that Senators and Representatives are responsible to the people who elect them, not to the state governments. A state may not interpose itself between the people and their National Government or interfere with the direct line of accountability. By attempting to control the discretion of its congressional delegates through coercive ballot labels, Missouri blurs this accountability. While a state may respectfully petition Congress through a memorial resolution, it cannot use its Elections Clause power to impose conditions or penalties on candidates for federal office.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes, the law is unconstitutional, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. I continue to believe, contrary to the premise in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, that the people of the States have reserved powers to prescribe qualifications for their congressional representatives. However, since the parties in this case conceded the validity of the premise that states only have delegated authority over federal elections, I concur in the judgment based on that concession.
Concurring - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the law is unconstitutional, but on First Amendment grounds. Article VIII violates a candidate's First Amendment right to appear on the ballot unaccompanied by pejorative language required by the state. The law is not a valid time, place, and manner regulation because it is not content-neutral; it is viewpoint-discriminatory, singling out only those candidates who fail to conform to the state's preferred position. By injecting a biased message onto the ballot, the state skews the election process in a way that violates the First Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the Court's holding in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, establishing that the Elections Clause is a grant of procedural, not substantive, power. The case prevents states from using the ballot itself as a tool to coerce or instruct federal representatives on policy matters. By striking down this 'scarlet letter' provision, the Court protects the direct line of accountability between federal officeholders and the electorate, free from state interference that seeks to dictate legislative action or manipulate electoral outcomes.
