document: State statutes that bar first-time candidates from running for Congress have been held to add to the qualifications set forth in the Constitution and have been invalidated . For example , the 1972 decision in Dillon v. Fiorina struck down a New Mexico law requiring candidates entering a congressional primary to have belonged to their party for a year and to pay a registration fee . But state statutes that simply limit the tenure of existing congressional officeholders have not yet been tested in court . The constitutionality of such state term limits may , however , be tested next month . Florida 's attorney general has asked its state Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on a term-limit initiative that would limit the state 's members of Congress to eight consecutive years in office . Three U.S. House members , led by Democrat Larry Smith , have filed briefs asking the court to rule state term limits unconstitutional . The court will hear arguments Friday , and may rule later this month . By 6 to 1 , the California Supreme Court ruled this month that the state 's new term-limit law was constitutional . The court said the `` state 's strong interests in protecting against an entrenched , dynastic legislative bureaucracy '' outweighed objections that term limits restrict voter choice at the ballot box . But the court 's decision affected only term limits on state officials ; federal officeholders were n't included in California 's limits . Nevertheless , the California decision demolished many of the legal arguments made by incumbents . They claimed there is a `` fundamental right to be a candidate for public office , '' which they found among the `` associational rights '' in the First Amendment . They argued that voters were denied the right to be represented by the same legislator indefinitely , and that term limits discriminated against incumbents and denied them their right to equal protection of the laws . California 's highest court rejected all of these arguments . Term limitations do not restrict the right to vote for a candidate because of his or her ideology or party . Therefore , they do not deprive voters of the freedom to associate with candidates based on their viewpoint or with any particular party . Rather , they prevent citizens from voting for a particular candidate after he has served in office a set number of years . They may vote for that candidate again after a `` waiting period '' has ended . The restriction is imposed in a non-discriminatory manner on all candidates regardless of viewpoint or party affiliation . In its 1972 decision Bullock v. Carter and again in its 1982 decision Clements v. Fashing , the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a particular candidate has no `` fundamental '' right to ballot access or to run for office . Federal courts have upheld many state restrictions on who may qualify for ballot access . They have never held reasonable , non-discriminatory restrictions on who may run a violation of the right to vote . Likewise , term limits do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment . The Supreme Court has found that clause violated only in those cases where ballot access restrictions discriminate against the poor and against new , small or independent party candidates . Unlike the age , residency and citizenship requirements , term limits do not prevent any non-incumbent from running for Congress . Nor do they prevent a House member who has reached a term limit from running for the U.S. Senate or vice versa . Nor do they limit an incumbent who leaves office for a period of time -LRB- six years in Washington state -RRB- from running again . Moreover , term limits do not in any way modify the age , residency or citizenship requirements in the Constitution . Consequently , the argument that term limits are `` qualifications '' just like those already in the Constitution -- and that therefore they can be added only by amending the Constitution -- is n't particularly convincing . Viewed in this way , term limits imposed by states would be constitutional . The Supreme Court has long held that the power to ensure a fair electoral system , truly responsive representation in Congress and a high degree of citizen participation in elections rests with the states . In its 1974 decision Storer v. Brown , the Supreme Court upheld a California law that prohibited an independent candidate from running for Congress because he had changed his registration to Independent less than 11 months before the election . This law was found not to be an improper additional qualification because a valid state interest was pursued . In explaining that interest , the court recognized that `` there must be a substantial regulation of elections -LCB- by the states -RCB- if they are to be fair and honest , '' and if some sort of order is to accompany the democratic process . As recently as June of this year , the Supreme Court again reiterated that the states have reserved to themselves , via the Tenth Amendment , `` the power to regulate elections . '' Elsewhere , the court in 1988 ruled in South Carolina v. Baker , that certain `` extraordinary defects in the national political process might render congressional regulation of state activities invalid under the Tenth Amendment . '' The court has not defined what it means by `` extraordinary defects , '' but surely the fact that 98 % of House incumbents are routinely re-elected and that one out of five incumbents ran with no major-party opposition in 1990 might qualify . Where the incumbent is almost the pre-ordained winner in an election , there is no effective competition of ideas or candidates and incumbents are less responsive to the will of the electorate . On this basis , term limits merely ensure a fair election system and the `` republican form of government '' guaranteed the states under the Constitution . Should the court rule against term limits by the states , numerous other ballot access restrictions will likely be passed that have many of the same effects as term limits . One option would limit an incumbents ' access to the ballot . States could allow an incumbent who has served a set number of years in the same office to run again , but only as a `` write-in '' candidate . Presumably , if an incumbent were truly effective and popular he would n't find that a crushing obstacle . Two sitting U.S. House Members won their first terms as write-in candidates . Incumbents would certainly have the resources to educate voters in write-in procedures . Another option would require candidates to have `` ballot statements '' appear next to their names . Each candidate would have to answer the question : `` Will you adhere to a -- year term limit ? '' The answer would appear on the ballot so voters would know a candidate 's views on term limits . Many such ballot restrictions have been upheld by the courts . Incumbents should take heed . If they count only on the courts to safeguard their political castles , they may be in for a rude surprise . -- Mr. Mellor is president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice , a Washington , D.C. , litigation and educational organization .
extractive_keyphrases: term limits term limitations congressional officeholders fair election system house incumbents congressional regulation constitution supreme court
abstractive_keyphrases: u.s. house members new term-limit law