Term Limits/ Electoral College

Term Limits

Is it constitutional for states to change the term limits from what is stated in the Constitution? The Supreme Court case of U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thorton set a standard for States being able to limit terms of representatives in office. The Supreme Court case of Cook v. Gralike then followed as a response. Both of these cases were deemed unconstitutional because of the changes from the Constitution. These two court cases show an example for other cases to follow.

The case of U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thorton argues the constitutionality of the Arkansas Constitution. Amendment 73 of the Arkansas Constitution says that, “Any person having been elected to three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas shall not be certified as a candidate and shall not be eligible to have his/her name placed on the ballot for election to the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas. Any person having been elected to two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas shall not be certified as a candidate and shall not be eligible to have his/her name placed on the ballot for election to the United States Senate from Arkansas.” This amendment goes against the qualifications for office set forth in the Constitution. The only qualifications in Article I of the Constitution are “No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 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. 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." The reason that Amendment 73 might be unconstitutional is because it adds to what is said in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not say anything about States being able to States being able to set their own term limits, this is where the question of constitutionality comes in. Even though the Constitution does not talk about the States, it should be assumed that they have to stick with the term limits in the Constitution.
On November 13, 1992 respondent Robbie Hill filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Arkansas saying that Amendment 73 of the Arkansas Constitution is unconstitutional because it sets limits that are not stated in the Constitution. Arkansas Supreme Court decided that the Constitutionality depends on two things. The first is whether the Constitution prohibits States from adding or altering the Constitution limits and the second is if the Constitution does forbid alters, whether Amendment 73 is formulated as restriction to be on the ballot or outright disqualification from running.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional for States to alter the qualifications set forth in the Constitution. In order for the court to make this decision they looked back at the case of Powell v. McCormick (1969). This case dealt with Qualification Clauses in the exclusion of a Member of Congress. The conclusion of this case was the Congress cannot add or alter the qualifications set in the Constitution. These two cases set a clear ruling for adding or altering to the Constitution.

In 1996, as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision of the case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton, Missouri voters adopted an amendment to Article VIII of their Constitution. This amendment would “instruct” each member of Missouri’s congressional delegation “to use all of his or her delegated powers to pass the Congressional Term Limits Amendment.” The amendment would limit the House of Representatives term limit to three terms and two terms in the Senate. The Amendment also directs the Missouri Secretary of State to determine whether a statement on a candidate’s term limits should be placed by his or her name on the election ballot.

Don Gralike brought the issue to court to stop the Secretary from implementing the amendment. The District Court agreed with Gralike and found that Article VIII went against what was previously stated in the Constitution. This was because the court decided it added additional qualifications that burdened a candidates first amendment rights to speak freely on the issue of term limits.

Both cases show a clear example of what the Supreme Court sees as Constitutional when it comes to term limits. These two cases were very similar and the outcomes were also the same.

Electoral College

The cases of George W. Bush v. Palm Beach and George W. Bush v. Albert Gore were both surrounding the 2000 election and the recount. In a short period of time two cases arose arguing the recount of Florida. The second case, George W. Bush v. Albert Gore, is a reaction to the decision made in the first case.

The 2000 election caused many complications in Florida. George W. Bush v. Palm Beach surrounds the issue of recount in Florida. On November 8, 2000, the day after the election, the votes in Florida were 2,909,135 for Bush and 2,907,351 for Gore. Bush won by 1,784 votes, but because this was less than one half percent of the votes cast, an automatic recount occurred. After the recount the margin by which Bush had won was much smaller. As a reaction to this, Gore requested a recount in four counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami- Dade. The two parties than had conflicting views on the recount because of the Florida Election Code. Then on November 14th, as an action brought on from Volusia and joined by Palm Beach, Gore, and the Florida Democratic Party, the Florida Circuit Court decided that a seven day deadline was mandatory, but Volusia could turn theirs in at a later date. It was also decided that the Secretary of State could use her discretion to decide whether to include the late amended returns in a state-wide certification.

At this point all of the rulings from the District Court seem to make sense, but the power that was given to the Secretary of State. If one of the counties were to turn in their recount after the seven day deadline it is possible that those votes are not going to count. But if you are missing a section of votes, then the state is not representing all of their citizens.

With the decision that the Secretary was given she set a criteria which would decide what to do with late recounts. The Secretary said that by 2 pm on November 15th, any county that wants to turn in late recounts must submit a written statement of the facts and circumstances as to why the recount is late. Four counties then submitted late recounts and the Secretary decided that none of them seemed to need an extension. Then on November 16th as a reaction to the Secretary’s decision, the Florida Democratic Party and Gore filed a motion in the State Court, “arguing that the Secretary had acted arbitrarily and in contempt of the court’ s earlier ruling.” The next day the court denied this motion, saying that the Secretary had not acted out of line and had used the earlier ruling of the court. They then appealed to the First District Court of Appeal which sent the issue to the Florida Supreme Court. The Court said that a final count could not be declared until order from the Court.

People around the country were growing anxious as the decision was continuing to be put off. The issue of each county having to recount their votes had grown into much bigger deal. Finally on November 21st the Supreme Court made a decision. In the court’s mind there were two principle questions: “whether a discrepancy between an original machine return and a sample manual recount resulting from the way a ballot has been marked or punched is an “error in vote tabulation” justifying a full manual recount; and how to reconcile what it spoke of as two conflicts in Florida’ s election laws.” For the first issue the court decided that a discrepancy between a sample manual recount and machine count due to the way in which the ballot was marked does not constitute an error in tabulation sufficient for a manual recount. When it came to the second issue the court decided that the voting laws are contradictory. The court said that what the Secretary was ok because of what was said in the Declaration Rights of the State of Florida Constitution, but the court stated, “Because of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy.” The court set a deadline of November 26th at 5 pm for the recounts. The court also directed the Secretary to accept manual counts submitted prior to the deadline.

The decision made by the Supreme Court of Florida allowed all of the counties to have time to finish their votes. The court acted both constitutionally and democratically when it came to their decision. This case was not the end of the 2000 election. After the Supreme Court made these decisions the case of George W. Bush v. Albert Gore opened, and the recounting continued.

The court case of George W. Bush v. Albert Gore is continuing from the earlier case in November. On November 26th the results of the election were in and declared Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. The next day Gore filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court. Gore’s argument was against Section 102.168 of the Florida Constitution. This section says that, “receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election'' shall be grounds for a contest.” Gore was trying to find the small fraction of votes that he had lost the election with. The court decided that Gore did not have enough evidence for this to be a true argument. Gore then appealed to the First district Court of Appeal, which then sent the issue to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court decided that Gore did not have enough proof for Nassau County and Palm Beach County. Gore claimed that 3,300 ballots from those counties were not “legal” votes. The Supreme Court did decide that Gore had reason to challenge Miami-Dade because there was 9,000 ballots that failed to count votes for President when done by the machine. During this time many new votes were found that were not first accounted for. A gain of 215 votes and 168 legal votes were added to Gore’s total vote. These votes were then added to the total count.

At the Supreme Court seven of the justices agreed that there are constitutional issues with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The unconstitutionality came from the remedy ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court said that Florida legislature intended to obtain safe-harbor benefits, which is a violation of the Florida Election Code.

A lot of controversy for this election came from the ballot cards. Florida used ballot cards in which you have to punch a hole and this is thought to be part of the reason for the recount. These two cases resolve around the same issue and Gore’s want to be President. Gore continued to push the recount and found different reasons for recounts.

-Christen