514 U.S. 779, 838 (1995)
In November 1992 the voters of Arkansas approved Amendment 73 to their state constitution.1 The amendment's preamble declared that long-term incumbency had reduced voter participation and made elections less competitive and less representative.2
Section 3 barred any person elected to three or more terms in the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas from appearing on the ballot for that office. It imposed a parallel bar on any person elected to two or more terms in the United States Senate from Arkansas.
The amendment was self-executing and applied to all persons seeking election after January 1, 1993.3 On November 13, 1992, respondent Bobbie Hill, on behalf of herself and similarly situated Arkansas citizens, taxpayers, and registered voters, together with the League of Women Voters of Arkansas, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Pulaski County seeking a declaratory judgment that section 3 was unconstitutional and void.4 The complaint named then-Governor Clinton, other state officers, the Republican Party of Arkansas, and the Democratic Party of Arkansas as defendants.5
The State of Arkansas, through its Attorney General, intervened as a party defendant in support of the amendment.6 Several proponents of the amendment, including petitioner U. S. Term Limits, Inc., also intervened.7 On cross-motions for summary judgment the Circuit Court held that section 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution.8 In a 5-to-2 decision the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that holding.9 The State and the intervenors petitioned for writs of certiorari.10 The Supreme Court of the United States granted both petitions and consolidated the cases for argument.11
Whether the Qualifications Clauses of the U.S. Constitution prohibit States from imposing additional qualifications on candidates for Congress beyond those enumerated in the text?12
The Qualifications Clauses of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 set forth the exclusive qualifications for membership in Congress and may not be supplemented by the States or Congress.13
Yes. The text, structure, and history of the Constitution, including the Convention debates and ratification materials reviewed in Powell v. McCormack, establish that the Framers intended the listed qualifications to be fixed and exclusive to preserve a uniform national legislature open to merit.14 Applying this rule to the established facts, Amendment 73 adds term-limit disqualifications for congressional candidates that do not appear in the Qualifications Clauses, thereby violating the exclusivity principle.15
The Qualifications Clauses prohibit States from imposing additional qualifications on candidates for Congress.16
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Rehnquist, C. J., And O'connor And Scalia, Jj.
Justice Thomas dissents on the ground that the Qualifications Clauses merely list minimum eligibility requirements and do not preclude the people of the States from adding further qualifications through state law.17 He argues that because the Constitution is silent on the exclusivity question, the Tenth Amendment reserves the power to the States or the people.18
The majority's reading would prevent the people from exercising control over their own representatives in a manner consistent with the federal structure.19 Thomas emphasizes that the selection of Members of Congress remains an act of the people of each individual State, not an undifferentiated national electorate.20 The dissent concludes that the Arkansas amendment is a valid exercise of reserved power.21
Whether a state constitutional amendment that bars long-term congressional incumbents from appearing on the general election ballot constitutes an impermissible additional qualification for federal office?22
A state measure that has the intent and effect of disqualifying a class of candidates from congressional service adds an impermissible qualification even if framed as a ballot-access restriction.23
Yes. The Arkansas Supreme Court plurality correctly determined that the intent and effect of Amendment 73 was to disqualify long-term incumbents from further service.24 Applying the rule to the established facts, Section 3 prevents candidates who have served three House terms or two Senate terms from having their names placed on the ballot, thereby imposing a qualification not found in the Constitution.25
The Arkansas amendment constitutes an impermissible additional qualification for federal office.26
Whether the fact that a state measure is framed as a ballot-access restriction rather than an outright disqualification affects its constitutionality under the Qualifications Clauses?27
Constitutional rights may not be indirectly denied through sophisticated devices; a ballot-access restriction that has the purpose and effect of evading the Qualifications Clauses is unconstitutional.28
No. The form of the restriction is irrelevant when the measure is designed to achieve a result forbidden by the Constitution.29 Applying this rule to the established facts, Amendment 73's ballot-access mechanism was enacted with the avowed purpose of limiting congressional terms and produces the practical effect of disqualifying incumbents, rendering the framing as a ballot restriction constitutionally insignificant.30
Framing the measure as a ballot-access restriction does not save it from unconstitutionality under the Qualifications Clauses.31
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy concurs in the judgment, emphasizing that the National Government owes its existence to the whole people and that federalism protects the direct relationship between the people and their national representatives.32 He rejects the notion that States may interfere with that relationship by imposing eligibility requirements that sever the link between national citizenship and the selection of Members of Congress.33 The concurring opinion stresses that the people of the United States possess a political identity independent of their state citizenship.34
This identity is reinforced by the republican character of the National Government.35 Kennedy concludes that the Arkansas enactment intrudes upon this federal domain and exceeds the boundaries of the Constitution.36
Whether the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States or the people the power to add qualifications for Members of Congress?37
The power to set qualifications for Members of Congress is not among the original powers of the States and therefore is not reserved by the Tenth Amendment. The Qualifications Clauses were intended to be the exclusive source of qualifications.38
No. The power to add qualifications did not exist before the Constitution was ratified and therefore could not be reserved.39 The plan of the Convention and the text of the Tenth Amendment confirm that any such power must derive from a delegation that the Constitution does not provide.40 Applying this rule to the established facts, Amendment 73 cannot be sustained as an exercise of reserved state power because the Framers fixed the qualifications in the Constitution to ensure uniformity and to prevent state interference with the national legislature.41
The Tenth Amendment does not reserve to the States or the people the power to add qualifications for Members of Congress.42
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Rehnquist, C. J., And O'connor And Scalia, Jj.
Justice Thomas maintains that the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government, including the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for congressional candidates.43 He contends that the people of each State retain the authority to set qualifications for their own representatives because the Constitution is silent on the matter.44 The selection of Members of Congress is an act of the people of the individual States.45
Thomas argues that the majority's position frustrates the apparent purpose of the Tenth Amendment's final phrase.46 The dissent concludes that nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress.47