U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
Facts
Arkansas adopted Amendment 73 to its state constitution in 1992. Section 3 provided that anyone elected to three or more terms in the U.S. House from Arkansas, or two or more terms in the U.S. Senate from Arkansas, could not be certified as a candidate and could not have his or her name placed on the ballot for that federal office. Respondent Bobbie Hill and others sued for a declaratory judgment that § 3 was unconstitutional, and Arkansas defended the amendment. Although the measure did not absolutely bar service because a candidate could run as a write-in, its stated aim was to limit the terms of elected officials.
Issue
May a State impose term-limit-type restrictions on candidates for Congress by denying ballot access to otherwise constitutionally qualified candidates who have already served a specified number of terms? More broadly, does the Constitution permit States to add to the qualifications for Members of Congress, either directly or indirectly through ballot-access rules?
Rule
The qualifications for service in the United States Congress are fixed in the Constitution and are exclusive. States have no reserved or delegated power to add to those qualifications, and they may not accomplish indirectly through ballot-access restrictions what the Constitution forbids them to do directly. The Elections Clause authorizes procedural regulations of elections, not rules that favor or disfavor classes of candidates or evade the Qualifications Clauses.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Ohio refuses to place Maya on the ballot solely because she lacks four years of district residency, is the statute constitutional?