From: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:52:22 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
: >: [constitutionality of term limits...]
: 
: Leaving aside the whole discussion of  merit, and focusing entirely upon
: constitutionality, the question should be posed as follows:
: 
: I'm over 25, a citizen, etc. Do I have the right to have my name on the
: ballot? The answer is clearly no. First, I have to pass many criteria
: set by the state including either being nominated by a government-approved
: political party or gathering n-thousand signatures. 
: 
: Note well: term limits, as defined by the recent constitutional amendments,
: do no prohibit anyone from running for office. They simply demote anyone
: who has held office for n-terms to the signature gathering process. They
: are no longer automatically on the ballot just because they are nominated by
: a government-approved political party. That's it!
: 
: Term limits, defined in this way, are clearly constitutional. To argue
: otherwise, you would have to say, in effect, that Demopublicans and
: Republicrats have a right to appear on the ballot that an arbitrary man
: on the street does not.

If, as Ed suggests, the incumbants are not excluded from the ballot,
but are only required to jump through a extra, but reasonably small
hoop, then perhaps the court would see the requirement as not
unduly burdensome.  But that does not negate the fact that the
state lacks a legitimate purpose.

(I think) in requiring party nomination or n-thousand signatures the
state wants to keep the ballot relatively simple so as not to confuse 
the voter.  For example, 15 years or so back, the American Party of 
Texas challenged the requirement that any party which failed to poll 
2% or better had to go through the signature-gathering process.  
That provision was upheld, presumably for the reason of ballot 
clarity, and was deemed as not an unreasonable burden.  For term 
limits, however, requiring the incumbant to gather signatures doesn't 
serve this purpose, as the incumbant's name is (hopefully) easily 
recognized and will not lead to confusion.

A couple of years back, someone challenged the Texas constitutional
provision that prohibited a sitting office holder from running for the
state legislature.  That provision was upheld because the state's 
interest was to prevent the sitting office holder from neglecting
his or her present duties while running for higher office.

But where a state (California, I think) required a candidate (who 
had sufficient signatures) come up with a $700 filing fee, the court 
said no.  This provision violated the equal protection of the right 
of access to the ballot by indigents.

The list of examples goes on, but hopefully the point is clear that
to pass Equal Protection muster, the state must produce a legimate
purpose.  [That requirement notwithstanding, the supreme court as of 
late has taken more of a hands-off approach to equal protection and
might agree that term limits are fine under that constitution.  
Serveral of the judges who traditionally have favored greater access 
to the ballot are gone (Brennan, Marshall), and those who have given
more deferrence to the states are still active (Rehnquist, Scalia, 
White, O'Connor).]

Bill Cramer

251 West Central Street, Suite 142      | "Justice is always the aim of the 
Natick, MA 01760 USA                    |    law -- but only, I think on 
Internet: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us  |    theoritical level."
CIS: 70322,3412                         |        -- F. Lee Bailey 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics