U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
Headline: Court strikes down Arkansas ballot term limits that barred longtime members from appearing on congressional ballots, holding states cannot add qualifications and preserving uniform, Constitution-based rules for who may run for Congress.
Holding:
- Prevents states from keeping long-serving members off congressional ballots.
- Requires term limits for Congress to be enacted by constitutional amendment.
- Protects uniform national qualifications for who may run for Congress.
Summary
Background
On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73, which imposed term limits and, in §3, barred from the general election ballot any person who had served three or more House terms or two or more Senate terms. A state court and then the Arkansas Supreme Court (5–2) struck down §3 as unconstitutional after Bobbie Hill and others sued to stop certification of barred candidates. The case reached this Court, and Justice Stevens wrote the opinion.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether a State may add or change the Constitution’s listed qualifications for serving in Congress. Relying on earlier decisions and historical analysis, the majority concluded that the Constitution fixes those qualifications and does not permit States to add new ones. The Court also rejected Arkansas’ argument that framing the measure as a ballot-access rule rather than an outright disqualification made it constitutional, because the amendment’s purpose and effect were to handicap or remove certain candidates.
Real world impact
The ruling stops Arkansas’ specific ballot ban and makes clear that individual States may not bar otherwise eligible people from running for Congress by adding qualifications. Incumbent members who would have been excluded cannot be kept off ballots by this state measure. The Court emphasized that any change to those eligibility rules must come through the Constitution’s amendment process, not by separate state laws or initiatives.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Kennedy joined the Court’s opinion and added remarks about the national character of the federal government. Justice Thomas, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia, dissented, arguing the Constitution is silent on state-added qualifications and that States or their people should be free to set their own rules.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?