United States Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
514 U.S. 779, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
States cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress that are stricter than those specified in the U.S. Constitution. The qualifications for service in Congress set forth in the text of the Constitution are exclusive and may not be supplemented by either Congress or the States.
Facts:
- On November 3, 1992, voters in Arkansas adopted Amendment 73 to the Arkansas State Constitution, titled the 'Term Limitation Amendment.'
- The preamble of Amendment 73 stated its purpose was to limit the terms of elected officials who 'remain in office too long' and to address 'entrenched incumbency.'
- Section 3 of the amendment prohibited any candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from having their name placed on the ballot if they had already been elected to three or more terms.
- Section 3 also prohibited any candidate for the U.S. Senate from having their name placed on the ballot if they had already been elected to two or more terms.
- The amendment did not impose an absolute bar to serving further terms, as an affected candidate could theoretically run and win as a write-in candidate.
Procedural Posture:
- Bobbie Hill, on behalf of herself and others, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Pulaski County, Arkansas (a state trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment that Section 3 of Amendment 73 was unconstitutional.
- The State of Arkansas and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. intervened as defendants to support the amendment.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Arkansas trial court held that Section 3 of Amendment 73 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution.
- The defendants (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. and the State of Arkansas) appealed the decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court (the state's highest court).
- The Arkansas Supreme Court, in a 5-to-2 decision, affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the amendment was unconstitutional.
- The State of Arkansas and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision.
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 an amendment to a state's constitution that prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for the U.S. Congress from appearing on the general election ballot, if that candidate has already served a specified number of terms, violate the Qualifications Clauses of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. A state-imposed restriction on ballot access for congressional candidates based on prior service is contrary to the fundamental principles of representative democracy and violates the U.S. Constitution's Qualifications Clauses. The qualifications enumerated in the Constitution are fixed and exclusive. The power to add qualifications is not a 'reserved' power under the Tenth Amendment because this power did not exist for the states prior to the Constitution's creation of a national government. The Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications to ensure a uniform National Legislature, severing the idea that Members of Congress were delegates of the states. The ballot-access restriction is an impermissible indirect attempt to disqualify incumbents, as its avowed purpose and effect are to evade the Qualifications Clauses. This measure is not a permissible regulation of the 'Times, Places and Manner' of elections, which is a clause intended for procedural regulations, not substantive exclusions of classes of candidates.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The Arkansas amendment is unconstitutional because it interferes with the fundamental relationship between the national government and its citizens. The Constitution created a national government that owes its existence to the whole people of the United States, giving Americans a dual political capacity as citizens of both their state and the nation. The right to choose national representatives is a federal right of national citizenship, and states cannot interfere with this direct relationship. The Arkansas law improperly burdens the right of voters to vote for their chosen candidates based on how they exercised that right in the past, which is an impermissible interference with a federal right.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The Constitution is silent on whether states can prescribe additional eligibility requirements for their congressional representatives, and where the Constitution is silent, the power is reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. The Qualifications Clauses are merely a list of minimum, baseline requirements, not an exclusive list that prohibits states from adding their own. The historical evidence from Powell v. McCormack only proves that Congress cannot add qualifications for its own members due to conflicts of interest, a concern not present when the people of a state impose restrictions on their own representatives. The people of Arkansas, exercising their reserved powers, should be free to determine the eligibility of candidates who seek to represent them.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that the qualifications for federal legislative office enumerated in the Constitution are exclusive and cannot be altered by either Congress or the states. It significantly limits the power of states to regulate federal elections, clarifying that the Elections Clause only permits procedural regulations, not substantive ones that effectively create new qualifications. By striking down state-imposed term limits, the ruling reinforced the national character of Congress and the direct relationship between federal representatives and the people of the entire nation, not just their home state. This decision effectively ended the burgeoning state-level movement to impose term limits on federal officeholders, mandating that any such change must come through a formal amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
