The Supreme Court dealt a heavy blow to the term limit movement Monday, ruling that states may not by law restrict how long members of Congress serve on Capitol Hill.

The 5-4 ruling strikes down popular measures in 23 states, including California, that would have forced federal representatives off the ballot after several terms in Washington. But the ruling does not affect term limits on state officeholders, so California’s restrictions on lawmakers in Sacramento remain in effect.

Looking back more than 200 years, the justices concluded that the authors of the Constitution wanted the people to be free to pick their lawmakers through frequent elections rather than limit who can serve through rules and restrictions.

“A state-imposed restriction is contrary to the fundamental principle of our representative democracy, embodied in the Constitution, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the court.


During the early 1780s, it was the popular practice to limit service in the Legislature. Many states had a “rotation” requirement that forced members to step aside after several terms.

But the delegates who gathered in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 to write a new federal Constitution rejected a rotation requirement for the new federal Constitution. Better to have veteran lawmakers who “will be thoroughly masters of the public business” than to require a steady procession of fresh faces, said James Madison.

As written, the Constitution sets only a few minimum qualifications for national legislators. For example, members of the House must be at least 25 years old and have been a citizen for at least seven years. A senator must be at least 30 and a citizen for nine years.

Those few requirements are “defined and fixed in the Constitution and are unalterable,” Alexander Hamilton said at the time.


Based on this historical evidence, the high court in 1969 ruled that the House “is without power” to exclude any member who has been properly elected by the voters of his district. That ruling came in the case of Powell vs. McCormack. Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell was accused of diverting House funds to pay for trips to the Bahamas. In 1967, the House voted to refuse to seat him until the investigation was completed. But the high court ruled unanimously that he must be reinstated.

On Monday, the court expanded on the ruling in the Powell case to say that states may not force veteran lawmakers to step down, except when they are defeated for reelection.

“We are firmly convinced that allowing the several states to adopt term limits for congressional service would effect a fundamental change in the constitutional framework. Any such change must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an individual state, but rather through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V,” Stevens wrote.

The Constitution does not “allow individual states to craft their own qualifications for Congress,” Stevens concluded.


The issue split the court, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy casting his deciding vote with the more liberal faction.

Usually, the court’s conservatives, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, can be counted on to uphold popular state measures. They have also united to uphold states’ rights at the expense of Congress.

Last month, a Rehnquist-led majority struck down the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act and declared that Congress has no power to meddle in purely state and local business. Kennedy, a Sacramento native and an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, joined that opinion but added a separate statement saying that he was not ready to undercut decades of civil rights and environmental laws.

In the term limit case (U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton, 93-1456), Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to uphold the limits set by the voters in Arkansas.


“It is ironic that the court bases today’s decision on the right of the people to ‘choose who they please to govern them’ . . . [while] invalidating a provision that won nearly 60% of the votes cast in a direct election,” wrote Thomas for the dissenters. “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. The Constitution is simply silent on this question.”

Thomas said that he agrees members of Congress cannot use their power “to perpetuate themselves or their ilk in office” by imposing new restrictions on candidates. But “it would be simply incoherent to assert that the people of the states” gave up their power to set term limits for their lawmakers when they ratified the Constitution.

“The Constitution derives its authority instead from the consent of the people of the states,” he said.

Kennedy disagreed and explained his view that, while Congress cannot intrude on the powers of the states, the states cannot intrude in the “federal domain.” The qualifications of members of Congress cannot be set by “a single state,” he wrote.


Besides Kennedy and Stevens, who is the senior justice and an appointee of President Gerald R. Ford, the majority consisted of Justice David H. Souter, a George Bush appointee; and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, appointees of President Clinton.

The only option left for term limit advocates is to amend the Constitution. But in March, House Republican leaders failed to gain the needed two-thirds vote to approve a constitutional amendment that would have set term limits if ratified by three-fourths of the states.

“Give us 60 more Republicans next year and we’ll pass term limits,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said after the 227-204 vote, signaling that term limits would remain a partisan issue.

By large majorities, the Democrats--the dominant party on Capitol Hill until November’s election--have opposed term limits.


Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) has promised to seek a Senate vote during the summer on term limits. To win approval, a constitutional amendment needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and must gain ratification from three-fourths, or 38, of the states.

In 1951, the Constitution was amended to set limits on presidential terms when the states ratified the 22nd Amendment, which says: “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.” The Constitution originally set no limits on how long the President might serve.

Term limits have been a powerful political reform movement. When put to a vote, the electorate in state after state has approved measures to limit House members to three terms, or six years, while restricting senators to two terms, or 12 years.

Critics said that these laws would wrongly deprive voters of the opportunity to reelect distinguished and experienced lawmakers. However, proponents contended that veteran lawmakers used the power and perks of their office, especially their ability to raise campaign funds, to virtually guarantee their reelection.


But the same voter anger that propelled the term limit movement also succeeded last November in undercutting one of its key premises: Many Democratic barons on Capitol Hill--all with fat campaign war chests--were unceremoniously dumped by voters. House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) and former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) were among those sent into retirement.

Still, the leaders of the term limit movement have not eased off, and they reacted angrily to Monday’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court today granted a temporary reprieve to the era of career politicians,” said Scott Rasmussen, chairman of the Term Limits Leadership Council. “By overturning the votes of 25 million Americans, five justices have ensured that public distrust of government, and public support for term limits, will continue to grow.”

“The American people overwhelmingly want term limits. The time for political games in Congress is over,” added Paul Jacob, executive director of U.S. Term Limits.


Both said that Congress should approve the constitutional amendment and send it on to the states for ratification.

But the League of Women Voters praised the decision as a victory for the voters.

“We believe in the wisdom of the voters. But the voters need more choices at the ballot box, not fewer. Restricting whom we can vote for is not the answer,” said Betty Cain, the league’s president.

Meanwhile, the court ruled that police must generally knock and announce themselves before breaking into a house, even if they have a valid search warrant. But this is not “an inflexible rule,” and police sometimes must burst in unannounced if they are in danger or if evidence can be easily destroyed, the justices said.


The 9-0 ruling (Wilson vs. Arkansas, 94-5707) is the first to say that the Fourth Amendment requires police to give a warning, but it follows the law as it now exists in most states, including California.

* RELATED STORY, EXCERPTS FROM DECISION: A14

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

23 States Affected


The decision invalidating term limits was directed at Arkansas but affects 22 other states that restrict congressional terms. Term limits for state political offices are not affected by the ruling, only those limits on U.S. congressional terms.

States that have voted to allow federal term limits Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Florida Idaho Maine Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming