dictionary

U.S. Supreme Court hears Missouri term-limits case

By Raju Chebium
CNN.com Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over the constitutionality of a Missouri ballot measure allowing state officials to place labels beside congressional candidates who failed to support term limits.

Under the referendum, approved by 57 percent of Missouri voters in November 1996, candidates who did not support amending the U.S. Constitution to include term-limits language would be identified as having "disregarded" or "declined" voter instructions on the matter.

Missouri voters told state officials to write the label requirement into the state constitution.

CASE BRIEFS 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and briefs Cook v. Gralike, No. 99-929 (FindLaw)  ALSO Have term limits reached their limit? Read the column

IN-DEPTH • Justice Profiles • Supreme Court Home Page

LEGAL RESOURCES   FindLaw Supreme Court Center   • Court History   • The Justices   • Landmark Decisions FindLaw opinion database: Supreme Court opinions from 1893-2002 Search by party: Search by full-text:

James McAdams, arguing for Missouri in Cook v. Gralike, said the labels were meant to instruct voters on candidates' stances on the matter, not prejudice the candidate.

"These instructions do not have teeth," he said. "They are nonbinding instructions."

Justice David Souter asked why the labels were not "pejorative."

McAdams said there is no evidence that voters would reject candidates based primarily on the labels.

McAdams, a lawyer with the Missouri attorney general's office, said the labels were as "neutral" as labeling a candidate a Democrat, Republican or Independent. He said the label clearly would be unconstitutional if it included more inflammatory words like "traitor."

Jonathan Franklin, arguing against the labels, said they were designed to influence the outcome of elections, unconstitutionally injecting the state's view in the voting booth.

He said that by labeling only those candidates who disagree with term limits, "the state is singling out just one side of the issue" and telling the public not to vote for anyone who disagrees with an issue the state considers important.

Under the U.S. Constitution, a state must make sure that ballots are "evenhanded," Franklin said, adding that candidates who did not favor term limits were subject to "content" and "viewpoint" discrimination.

If the labeling requirement had been implemented, state officials would have been able to add this phrase beside the names of incumbents who failed to support term limits: "Disregarded voters' instructions on term limits," according to the ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Missouri.

Non-incumbents who refused to sign a term-limits pledge would have had this notation beside their names: "Declined to pledge to support term limits."

Missouri Secretary of State Rebecca Cook would have had the power to decide which labels to affix beside which candidate.

The labels never got on the ballot because the lower courts struck down the referendum as unconstitutional under Article V, which deals with the process of amending the Constitution.

Lower courts also agreed with Douglas Gralike, a Democratic candidate who sued the state soon after the 1996 elections, claiming that his First Amendment right to disagree with the electorate was violated.

Missouri term limits ballot measure goes to U.S. Supreme Court
November 3, 2000

Stuart Rothenberg: Is this the last dance for term limits?
April 14, 2000
Stuart Rothenberg: Challengers look to Rep. Chenoweth to honor term-limit pledge
January 26, 1999

Supreme Court of the United States
FindLaw Supreme Court Center
Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court Collection - Cornell University
On the Docket 2000-2001
The Supreme Court Historical Society
Jurist Guide to the Supreme Court - University of Pittsburgh
History of the Federal Judiciary

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.