U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

The 1980s and 1990s saw a surge of enthusiasm for term limits. Around the country, citizens became aware of the fact that certain senators and representatives seemed to have become permanent fixtures Washington, D.C. With each year of "serving" their states or districts, these politicians gained more power and more influence, enjoyed greater advantages, and drifted further from the needs of their constituents. The nature of the American political process was such that incumbents tended to win elections; therefore, the answer was to "throw the bums out"--the "bums" being the incumbents. This, at least, was the view of term-limits advocates, who urged that a cap be placed on the number of terms an official elected to fill a position in the federal government could serve. According to the New Republic, U.S. Term Limits, a citizen's group, sent out a "huge red, white and blue envelope" containing a letter that began,

Fellow American, most members of Congress view their job as guaranteed for life. The average rate [of reelection] for incumbent congressmen over the last decade has been almost 98 percent. Why? Because it is almost impossible for a challenger to come anywhere near matching an incumbent's war chest! [i.e., their election budget] . . . term limits is the greatest movement of the twentieth century!

By the time the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, some 23 states had term-limitation statutes in place. Most of these, like the Arkansas provision challenged in Thornton, addressed that sector of public life in which term-limits advocates held that the most change was needed: Congress. In the general elections of 3 November 1992--when, incidentally, the nation voted in Arkansas's Governor Bill Clinton as its president by a 43 percent plurality--Arkansas voters had an opportunity to decide on a proposed amendment to limit terms of senators and representatives. The preamble of Amendment 73 said in part, "The people of Arkansas find and declare that elected officials who remain in office too long became preoccupied with reelection and ignore their duties as representatives of the people." Amendment 73 had term-limit provisions for the state's executive and legislative branches. Section 3, the portion challenged in Thornton was the provision for Congress. Specifically, section 3(a) limited representatives to no more than three terms, or six years; and 3(b) established the maximum length for senatorial service as two terms, or 12 years. The "self-executing" amendment would apply to all persons seeking election after 1 January, 1993.

Ten days after Arkansas voters approved Amendment 73, Bobbie Hill filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Pulaski County, Arkansas. The suit named herself, the League of Women Voters, and other Arkansas "citizens, residents, taxpayers and registered voters" as plaintiffs. The suit named the governor (which was still Bill Clinton, now on his way to the White House), other state officials, and the Republican and Democratic parties of Arkansas as defendants. State Attorney General Winston Bryant intervened as a defendant in support of the amendment, along with U.S. Term Limits, Inc.

The circuit court ruled that Amendment 73 violated Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Contained in Article I is the Qualifications Clause, which the court held should constitute the entirety of the qualifications imposed on candidates for the Senate or the House. Article I, section 2, clause 2 states that "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." In other words, as long as one was 25 years old or older, had been a citizen for seven years or more, and was a legal resident in the state where one chose to run for the House, one was eligible. The qualifications for the Senate in section 3, clause 3, imposed the same set of criteria--age, term of citizenship, and residence--though in different amounts. Section 3 states that "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." Beyond those three criteria, there were no constitutional restrictions on who could be a member of Congress.

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court by a 5-2 vote. Writing for a plurality of three justices, Justice Robert L. Brown held that the amendment was unconstitutional because the states had no power to "change, add to, or diminish" the requirements in the Qualifications Clause. "The uniformity in qualifications mandated in Article I," he wrote, "provides the tenor and the fabric for representation in the Congress. Piecemeal restrictions by State would fly in the face of that order." Amendment 73 was not, as the respondents claimed, "merely a ballot access amendment." This was a claim they had tried to make based on its language, which stated than anyone who had served more than the maximum number of terms "shall not be eligible to have his/her name placed on the ballot . . . " "Its intent and effect," the state's high court held, was "to disqualify congressional incumbents from further service." Two other justices on the Arkansas Supreme Court, however, questioned this ruling, with one of them pointing out that the Constitution nowhere prevents states from imposing additional qualifications for congressional service.