Concurrence Kennedy | Date decided 1995 | |
Full case name U.S. Term Limits, Incorporated, et al., Petitioners v. Ray Thornton, et al.; Winston Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, Petitioner v. Bobbie E. Hill, et al. Citations 514 U.S. 779 (more)
115 S. Ct. 1842; 131 L. Ed. 2d 881; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 3487; 63 U.S.L.W. 4413; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3790; 95 Daily Journal DAR 6496; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 29 Prior history On writs of cert. to the Supreme Court of Arkansas Majority Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia Ruling court Supreme Court of the United States Similar Clinton v City of New York, United States v Lopez, Printz v United States, South Dakota v Dole, Baker v Carr | ||
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states. The parties to the case were U.S. Term Limits, a non-profit advocacy group, and Arkansas politician Ray Thornton, among others.
Contents
Background
Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate. However, such a candidate was not barred from being written-in and winning by that method.
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 invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution:
and:
Also critical to the issue is the 17th Amendment, which transferred power to select US Senators from the state legislature, to the people of the state:
U.S. Term Limits claimed that Amendment 73 was "a permissible exercise of state power under the Elections Clause".
Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.
Supreme Court 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 concluded that:
He further ruled 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 ensure." 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:
He also noted that the amendment did not actually prevent anyone from election since it only prevents prospective fourth termers from being printed on the ballot but not from being written-in, and therefore did not overstep the qualifications clause of the federal Constitution.
The American Civil Liberties Union participated in the trial as an amicus curiae, urging it to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision.