U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
131 L. Ed. 2d 881 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
Facts
Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution on November 3, 1992, as a "Term Limitation Amendment." Section 3 of this amendment prohibited the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from appearing on the general election ballot if they had served three or more terms, and for the U.S. Senate if they had served two or more terms. The preamble stated the purpose was to address entrenched incumbency, which was believed to reduce voter participation and make the electoral system less free and competitive. The amendment was self-executing and applied to all persons seeking election after January 1, 1993.
Procedural history
Respondent Bobbie Hill and others filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking a declaratory judgment that Section 3 of Amendment 73 was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court held that Section 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed this holding in a 5-to-2 decision. The State of Arkansas and intervenors then petitioned for writs of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted and consolidated for argument.
Issue
The legal question is whether the Constitution forbids states from adding to or altering the qualifications for congressional service enumerated in the Constitution. Additionally, if states are forbidden, the issue is whether a ballot access restriction, like Amendment 73, is constitutionally significant or an impermissible indirect qualification.
Holding
The Court held that the Arkansas amendment violates the Federal Constitution. It affirmed the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision, concluding that states cannot impose additional qualifications for congressional service, even indirectly through ballot access restrictions.
Rule
The Constitution's Qualifications Clauses for Congress are exclusive and cannot be supplemented by states. The power to add qualifications is not an "original power" reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, as such a right did not exist before the Constitution. Allowing states to set their own qualifications would undermine the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy" that people choose whom they please to govern them, and would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature. The Elections Clause grants states authority for procedural regulations, not to exclude classes of candidates or dictate electoral outcomes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.