Ariel Cipoletta

March 1, 2010

AP Government, E Block

Berry

U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON

The 1990’s could be properly described as an amalgamating decade.  However, the early nineties came with an unsettling feeling for many American citizens.  Violence was portrayed as a daily part of life through the media with examples like the 1992 South-Central Los Angeles rioted after four white policemen were acquitted of video-taped assault charges for beating a black motorist, Rodney King.  Then 1993 brought terrorism to the American shores as a bomb was detonated in the garage beneath the World Trade Center.  And the nation was also facing a change in political ideologies with the switch from a Republican era of president Reagan to Bill Clinton.  Republican rule had produced a rather conservative Supreme Court, due to many appointments that took place during Republican control on the Executive Branch in years prior.  This conservative sway could be seen with Chief Justice William Rehnquist; however, there were also Supreme Court justices present at this time whose political views lie in the middle of the spectrum.[i]  This created many disagreements when arguing the Supreme Court case US Term Limits Inc v. Thornton in 1995.  During this time Republican candidates in the House of Representatives signed a document in which they promised to make political alterations and changes if they party succeeded in the election.  This document was called “Contract with America.” One such promise was to propose a bill that would create a vote on term limits in a timely fashion.  In 1994, Republicans swept the congressional election winning the majority in Congressfor the first time in four decades.  Republicans introduced the bills for limiting how many terms a member of Congress could serve, but it was shot down.  This crated an effect where States began creating individual term limits laws.[ii]

 The idea of new requirements and qualifications created by a source other than the Constitution had surfaced previously in 1969, twenty six years before in the case of Powell v. McCormack.  In this case Adam Clayton Powell, who was a senior member of the House, was found to be involved in scandal that involved allegations that he had refused to pay a judgment ordered by a court in the State of New York.  This was on charges of “misappropriated congressional travel funds, and illegally paid his wife a congressional staff salary for work she had not done.”[iii]  Even with this scandal Powell was reelected in 1966.  In January of the next year, John William McCormack (Speaker of the House) asked Powell to not take the oath of office.  The house then adapted a series of new regulations, which prevented him from taking his seat, and also took away his higher position as chairman in the house.  There was also a committee created to look into to Powell’s previous misconduct.  Later the house through an additional vote of congress Powell got excluded from congress again.  Additionally Congress censured him, fined him, snatched away his seniority, and announced his seat empty.  Powell, together with 13 of his constituents, filed suit in the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.  Powell identified McCormack and five other members as the defendants.  Parties were identified for helping and influencing enforcement of the congressional actions, which created congress the ability to crate new laws to enforced new stands in eligibility for members of the House of Representatives.  The Supreme Court sided in Powell’s favor.  The item brought into question was the concept of Judicial review versus Congressional power.  This case asked the question, does congress have the power to create new qualifications for its members.  It was explained by the Supreme Court, “allowing Congress to impose additional qualifications would violate that ‘fundamental principal of our represented democracy… that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.’”[iv]   These qualifications are clearly stated and read, “No Person shall be a Reprehensive 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,”[v] in reference to the House of Representatives in Article I, 2, cl. 2.  In reference to the Senate, in Article I, 3, cl. 3 of the Constitution, it plainly states, “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 State, and who shall not when elected, be an Inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”[vi]

On November 3, 1992 the state of Arkansas imposed the newly created Amendment 73 to the, Arkansas Constitution.  This was for the voters in the general election.  This Amendment was influenced by problems in politics in the early nineties where the people saw no significant visible changes or reforms by the congressional branch.  This put the question in people’s minds of whether or not the people they were voting in over and over again were fulfilling their duty to serve the people and the people needs.  These examples of events led some people to believe that the motives of the incumbents were no longer in the right place: representing the ideas and issues of the people.  The Preamble even stated, “Entrenched incumbency has reduced voter participation and has led to an electoral system that is less free, less competitive and less reprehensive than the system established by our founding fathers.   Therefore, the people of Arkansas, exercising their reserved powers, herein limit the terms of elected officials.”[vii]

This “Term Limitation Amendment”[viii] took the previous adapted regulations stated directly in the national constitution regarding the regulations and requirements needed to run for congressional office and added to the restrictions.  These restrictions denied ballot availability to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three or more terms in the House of Representatives or two or more terms in the Senate. 

            A few days later on November 13, 1992 the respondent, Bobbie Hill, who represented, “citizens, residents, tax payers and registered voters,”[ix] and the League of Women Voters of Arkansas filled a compliant to the County Court on grounds that 3 of Amendment 73 was “unconstitutional and void…”[x] 

            Two issues were established at the Arkansas Supreme Court level.  Does the forbid States from adding or altering the qualifications specifically stated in the constitution?  Secondly, if the constitution does forbid States from changing the qualifications, is Amendment 73 in fact, “formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than as a outright disqualification is of constitutional significance?[xi]  The bolded issue at hand in this case is uniform in this case as well as Powell v. McCormack.  This issue is whether or not the states have the power to add or alter the qualifications of its members.  

            The state of Arkansas argued, since no person is rejected from being reelected as many times as the people saw fit, only their name could not be placed on the electronic ballet, but could be written in, no new or altered qualifications were being imposed.  When it came time to come to a decision the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 Thornton.  The conclusion was decided by two key factors brought to the Supreme Courts attention.  First the Supreme Court,” the power to add qualifications is not with in the ‘original powers’ of the states, and thus is not reserved to the States by the tenth amendment.”  The Supreme also states, “ even if States possessed some original power in this are, we conclude that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for members of congress.”[xii]  Thus, Amendment 73 to the Arkansas constitution was ruled unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court didn’t fall under the states rights in elections, which include the state deciding the “time, places, and manner.” [xiii] Thornton also stated the favored opinion that allowing states to render their own qualification of the cognitional elections would create a disconnect in the union. 

            I believe that the Supreme Court made the appropriate decision because this case. Allowing a State to determine the conditions in which candidate are only permitted to have their name placed in the ballet based on a set limit of time a incumbent can spend in office creates a slippery slope for the future.  The circumstance allow States in the future to set their own standards for candidates and can lead to States gaining too much power on the candidate that gets elected.  Thus causing a separation in the nation's union and takes the voting rights away from people in these congressional elections.