Difference between revisions of "U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(See also)
 
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
[[Constitutional amendment]] 73 to [[Arkansas]]'s [[state constitution]] denied [[ballot access]] to any United States Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the [[U.S. House]] or two terms in the [[U.S. Senate]].<ref name=oyez>[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456 ''Oyez - U.S. Supreme Court Media - IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law'' "U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton," accessed December 27, 2013]</ref>
+
[[Constitutional amendment]] 73 to [[Arkansas]]'s [[state constitution]] denied [[ballot access]] to any United States Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the [[U.S. House]] or two terms in the [[U.S. Senate]].<ref name=oyez>[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456 ''Oyez - U.S. Supreme Court Media - IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law'', "U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton," accessed December 27, 2013]</ref>
  
Soon after the amendment's adoption by [[Ballot initiative|ballot measure]] at the [[Election results#Arkansas|general election]] on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it judicially invalidated.  She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the United States Constitution:<ref name=justia>[http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/case.html ''Justia.com'' "U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton - 514 U.S. 779 (1994)," accessed December 27, 2013]</ref>
+
Soon after the amendment's adoption by [[Ballot initiative|ballot measure]] at the [[Election results#Arkansas|general election]] on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it judicially invalidated.  She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the United States Constitution:<ref name=justia>[http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/case.html ''Justia.com'', "U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton - 514 U.S. 779 (1994)," accessed December 27, 2013]</ref>
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
 
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen,
 
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen,

Latest revision as of 16:27, 22 April 2014

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Court:U.S. Supreme Court
Text:Text of decision
Holding:
States cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those specified in the U.S. Constitution.
Case history
Filed:November 13, 1992
Trial court:Arkansas Circuit Court, Sixth District
Appellate court:Arkansas Supreme Court
Appellate court:U.S. Supreme Court
Author, appellate decision:John Paul Stevens
Appellate court decision:May 22, 1995
Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Laws governing
local ballot measures
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, was a 1995 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided against U.S. Term Limits, ruling that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated Congressional term limits provisions of 23 states.

Background

Constitutional amendment 73 to Arkansas's state constitution denied ballot access to any United States Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate.[1]

Soon after the amendment's adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it judicially invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the United States Constitution:[2]

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen,

and:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, Section 2).

Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.[2]

Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority articulated different views of the character of the federal structure established in the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that sustaining Amendment 73 would result in "a patchwork of state qualifications" for U.S. Representatives, and described that consequence as inconsistent with "the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure." Concurring, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the amendment would "interfere" with the "relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government." Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, countered that the Constitution's authority depends on "the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole," and argued that on the question of whether the qualifications clause is exclusive, "The Constitution is simply silent...And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people."[2]

The American Civil Liberties Union participated in the trial as an amicus curiae, urging it to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision; thus, the case is viewed by some as a political victory for the ACLU.

See also

Portal:Third Party Ballot Access

External lnks

References