| This issue was originally printed on tan paper. |
On May 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, 93-1456. By a vote of 5-4, the Court ruled that although states can regulate election "procedures", they cannot impose "qualifications", in Congressional elections. Congress cannot impose "qualifications" either; only a constitutional amendment can add any.
A key question for future ballot access litigation, as far as third party and independents for Congress is concerned, is "Is the challenged law a procedure, or is it a qualification?"
Procedures are Permitted
According to the Court's opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, a "procedure" is something which is "even-handed" and which "protects the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself". It is something which is necessary to make elections "orderly, fair and honest". It includes laws which prevent "interparty raiding" and laws which prevent "voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, or the presence of frivolous candidacies". It includes laws which are needed to guarantee that "elections are operated equitably and efficiently" and which guard against "irregularity and error in the tabulation of votes".
Qualifications are Forbidden
Stevens says a "procedure" never imposes any "substantive qualification rendering a class of potential candidates ineligible for ballot position." Rather, any substantive qualification of that type is a "Qualification", and states are forbidden to have them, for Congress. Following are excerpts from the decision which try to describe what "qualifications" are:
"Allowing individual states to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the U.S."
"If there is one watchword for representation of the various states in Congress, it is uniformity. Federal legislators speak to national issues that affect the citizens of every state...The uniformity in qualifications mandated in Article I provides the tenor and the fabric for representation in the Congress. Piecemeal restrictions by States would fly in the face of that order."
"Allowing (the states) to impose additional qualifications would violate that fundamental principle of our representative democracy 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them' (quoting Alexander Hamilton). The opportunity to be elected must be open to all."
"Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, we do not understand Powell as reading the Qualifications Causes 'to create a personal right to be a candidate for Congress'. The Clauses did, however, further the interest of the people of the entire Nation in keeping the door to the National Legislature open to merit of every description."
"Sovereignty confers on the people the right to choose freely their representatives to the National Government. 'The people are the best judges who ought to represent them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not elect, is to abridge their natural rights.' (quoting Robert Livingston).
"Restrictions upon the people to choose their own representatives must be limited to those 'absolutely necessary for the safety of the society'. 'That the right of the electors to be represented by men of their own choice, was so essential for the preservation of all their other rights, that it ought to be considered as one of the most sacred parts of our constitution' (quoting an 18th century speech in the English Parliament)."
"'The people are the best judges who ought to represent them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not elect, is to abridge their natural rights' (quoting from the constitutional debates)...'No man who has real merit, let his situation be what it will, need despair' (quoting New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention John Stevens)...'This which is proposed for the U.S. throws the door wide open for the entrance of every man who enjoys the confidence of his fellow citizens.' (quoting delegate T. Pickering). "'Money is not made a requisite -- the places of senators are wisely left open to all persons of suitable age and merit' (quoting constitutional delegate N. Webster)."
Stevens himself says "An aspect of sovereignty is the right of the people to vote for whom they wish...Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their representatives would result in a patchwork of state qualifications, undermining the uniformity and the national character that the framers envisioned and sought to ensure."
Stevens quotes with approval old state court decisions which struck down attempts by states to bar felons or ex-felons from the ballot for federal office, to dictate that candidates had to live in the district they sought to run in, and to require loyalty oaths for federal candidates.
"An amendment (i.e., state law) with the avowed purpose and obvious effect of evading the requirements of the Qualifications Clauses by handicapping a class of candidates cannot stand...The Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, or to favor or disfavor a class of candidates."
"The Elections Clause gives States authority to 'enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.'
However, 'the power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections does not justify, without more, the abridgment of fundamental rights.' (quoting past Supreme Court decisions)...Our cases upholding state procedures thus provide little support for the contention that a state-imposed ballot access restriction is constitutional when it is undertaken for the twin goals of disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause...We hold that a state amendment is unconstitutional when it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." (emphasis added)
How Does the Opinion Help?
1. For the first time, it will be possible to submit evidence about the motivation of state legislators, when a ballot access lawsuit is filed. In this case, authors of the Arkansas term limits law said that anyone could run as a write-in candidate, regardless of length of service.
The Court said that since the motivation of the authors of the law was obviously to limit terms, the write-in "loophole" didn't matter. The decision discusses evidence about the motivation of the law's authors.
This sets a precedent that the motivation of legislators, when they pass restrictive ballot access laws, is relevant. For example, according to an Alabama newspaper columnist last year, the pending Alabama bill to increase the signature requirements five-fold, is motivated by anger (on the part of legislators) that the Patriot Party in 1994 nominated several candidates who had lost Democratic primaries (the bill outlaws this type of "sore loser", so the additional part of the bill increasing the number of signatures is obviously not needed to solve the "sore loser" problem).
If the Alabama bill passes, and a lawsuit is brought against it, motivation will be relevant when the court is deciding whether the new law is a bona fide "regulation" or a "qualification".
2. There is now an analytic framework for ballot access constitutional challenges, at least for requirements for Congress.
Formerly, there was no benchmark to know what an unconstitutional ballot access law looks like. A bad U.S. Supreme Court precedent in 1986 had overturned the old rule that a ballot access law is probably unconstitutional if it seldom gets used. Another bad decision, in 1992, seemed to overturn the old rule that the compelling state interest test applies in ballot access lawsuits.
Now, we have this benchmark: a ballot access law is likely to be unconstitutional, at least for Congress, if it "favors or disfavors a class of candidates" and has no election-administration related purpose.
A prime example of such a law, is the Georgia ballot access law for third party and independent candidates for U.S. House. They are so severe that no third party has ever used them, and the law has existed for 52 years! The law is a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters, which averages 14,000 signatures per district. Next-door Tennessee gets along without an overly-crowded general election ballot, even though it only requires 25 signatures! With fair-minded judges, it should be possible to win a ruling that the Georgia requirements is "an attempt to favor or disfavor a class of candidates", not a law needed for the orderly and fair administration of elections. This is especially true, because Georgia even requires qualified parties to submit such petitions (but exempts qualified parties which polled 20% of the vote for President in the entire U.S., or 20% of the gubernatorial vote).
Anyone may receive a free copy of the decision from the Supreme Court, (202) 479-3211(1). It is 62 pages; the dissent by Justice Thomas, co-signed by Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and O'Connor, is 88 pages.
1. Alabama: HB 66, the bill to raise third party and independent candidate petitions from 1% to 5%, passed the House on May 4, but it is faltering. The two biggest newspapers in the state editorialized against it, and the hearing for the bill in the State Senate Constitution & Elections Committee, scheduled for May 24, has been postponed.
2. California: SB 418, to outlaw paid registration drives, failed in the Senate on May 18 on a 19-19 vote. However, it could be reconsidered at any time. New parties qualify for the California ballot by persuading 89,000 people to register into the party, and this difficult job generally requires the use of paid workers.
3. Illinois: SB 34, to prohibit paying people to obtain signatures for candidates on a per-signature basis, is informally tabled in the House Rules Committee.
4. Maine: LD 1091, to double the number of signatures for all candidates, was defeated May 12 in the Joint State & Local Government Committee.
5. New Hampshire: on May 23, the New Hampshire Senate unanimously voted to remove a provision from HB 333, which would have increased the requirements for a party to remain qualified. The outcome was a surprise, since the Senate Public Affairs Committee had voted on May 10 to increase the vote test from 3%, to 5%; but lobbying by the Libertarian Party's lone legislator, Don Gorman, was very effective.
HB 1022 was signed by Governor Roy Romer on May 25. COFOE leaders were invited to the ceremony. It lowers the number of signatures for third party and independent candidates (although it raises the U.S. House requirement from 500 to 800). It also gives petitioners a chance to obtain more signatures if the original petition is deficient. And it lets third party and independent presidential candidates avoid petitioning altogether, if they pay $500.
1. Indiana: HB 1783 was signed May 10. Now, petitions need no longer say that the party's candidates have not been convicted of a crime.
2. Maine: LD 652 lets voters sign as many petitions as they wish, and was signed into law May 16.
The May 4 B.A.N. had 1996 presidential primary dates for each state. Changes since then:
1. Arizona: the Democratic Party says it will not participate in the Feb. 27 primary, because national party rules say that only New Hampshire can hold a primary earlier than March 1. However, the Democratic National Committee may waive this rule. The Arizona Libertarian Party has also said that it will not participate, since it considers it a waste of taxpayer money.
2. Delaware: SB 129 was introduced May 2. It would provide that Delaware's primary should be two weeks after New Hampshire's.
3. Maine: LD 608 would provide that Maine's primary should be on the same day as New Hampshire's. However, it wouldn't take effect until the year 2000. It is in a conference committee.
4. Michigan: HB 4435 would provide for an open presidential primary. It passed the House Local Government Committee on May 17. The Michigan Democratic Party declared on April 29 that if this bill passes, the party will not participate in the primary.
5. Minnesota: S 115, to abolish the primary, passed the Senate May 1.
6. Oregon: SB 928, moving the primary from May to March 5, passed the Senate May 8.
7. South Carolina: SB 43, moving the primary to January, failed to pass.
8. Washington: SB 5852, to move the primary from May to March, failed to pass; but the Secretary of State has authority to move the primary, and he may move it to March anyway.
1. Alaska: SB 5, which changes the petition for non-presidential independent and third party candidates to June 1, passed the legislature on May 6. The current statutory deadline is August 1, but in 1990 a court ruled that even August 1 is too early! It is bizarre that the legislature is making the deadline (already declared too early) even earlier. The Natural Law Party is trying to persuade Governor Tony Knowles to veto the bill.
2. Florida: SB 1070 was signed into law on May 2. It makes the deadline for filing as a write-in candidate even earlier than it has been. The new deadline (even for write-ins in the general election) is the same date as the deadline for primary candidates to file to be on the ballot, which means that the decision to be a write-in candidate in November, must be before anyone even knows who is running in the primaries.
Another Florida bill, SB 2458, which would have let an unqualified party circulate its presidential petition before it knew the identity of its presidential candidate, failed to pass the House before adjournment.
3. Maryland: SB 244 passed on April 10. It sets up a commission to recommend changes in election laws.
4. Michigan: HB 4762, introduced May 2, would cut the number of signatures for third party and independent candidates from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to .5%.
5. New Hampshire: HB 455, which abolishes the straight-ticket ballot format, was signed into law May 16.
6. North Carolina: SB 546, which legalizes CityVote (the proposal to let cities hold a "beauty contest" presidential primary in November 1995), passed the Senate May 9.
7. Oregon: SB 1130 was signed on May 17. It makes the statewide office of Labor Commissioner nonpartisan instead of partisan.
8. Pennsylvania: HB 1516 would provide that write-in candidates file a declaration of write-in candidacy, if they want their write-ins counted.
9. Rhode Island: HB 6661, which would have deleted all language in the law that implies there are always only two qualified parties, was defeated in the House on May 10.
1. On May 1, the 11th circuit upheld Florida's mid-July petition deadline for third party and independent candidate petitions. U.S. Taxpayers Party v Smith, 93-2835. The 11th circuit said that state convenience justifies the deadline. Florida elections officials had said they wish to verify petitions during July and early August, so that the work wouldn't distract them in September when they conduct the primary. The decision was by Judges Albert Henderson (a Carter appointee), James Edmondson (Reagan) and Edward Carnes (Bush).
2. On April 28, the 11th circuit upheld Florida's 3% (of the number of registered voters) petition requirement for U.S. House candidates. Simpson v Smith, 94-3123. The decision was by Judges Gerald Tjoflat (Ford), Joseph Hatchett (Carter) and Edward Carnes (Bush). Simpson showed that the 3% requirement had been in effect for 25 years and has only been used by two candidates for the U.S. House. He also showed that 20 independent and third party candidates tried to get on the 1994 ballot for U.S. House, and they all failed. Nevertheless, the judges said he didn't present enough evidence.
On May 18, the 8th circuit heard New Party v McKenna, 94-3417, on whether political parties have a right to jointly nominate candidates. The judges were Richard Arnold, George Fagg and Harlington Wood. They seemed knowledgeable, but gave little clue as to how they will rule.
| STATE | REQUIREMENTS | SIGNATURES COLLECTED | DEADLINES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FULL PARTY | CAND. | LIBT | PATRIOT | GREEN | TAXPAYR | PARTY | CAND. | |
| Alabama | 11,991 | 5,000 | finished | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 2 | Sep 2 |
| Alaska | 2,586 | 2,586 | 100 | already on | already on | 0 | in doubt | in doubt |
| Arizona | 15,062 | (es) 8,000 | (reg) *9,200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 21 | Jun 30 |
| Arkansas | 21,506 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 15 |
| California | (reg) 89,006 | 147,238 | already on | (reg) 466 | already on | already on | 10-24-95 | Aug 9 |
| Colorado | no procedure | *0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 6 |
| Connecticut | no procedure | 7,500 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 7 |
| Delaware | (es) (reg) 180 | (es) 3,600 | already on | (reg) 130 | (reg) 5 | (reg) 168 | Aug 17 | Jul 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | (es) 3,200 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| Florida | 196,788 | 65,596 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 16 | Jul 15 |
| Georgia | 30,036 | 30,036 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 9 | Jul 9 |
| Hawaii | 4,889 | 3,829 | already on | 0 | *2,200 | 0 | Apr 24 | Sep 6 |
| Idaho | 9,644 | 4,822 | already on | 0 | 350 | 0 | Aug 31 | Aug 26 |
| Illinois | no procedure | 25,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 5 |
| Indiana | no procedure | 29,822 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 15 |
| Iowa | no procedure | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 16 |
| Kansas | 16,418 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jun 1 | Aug 6 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 29 |
| Louisiana | 0 | 0 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | Jun 30 | Aug 29 |
| Maine | 25,551 | 4,000 | can't start | can't start | already on | can't start | 12-14-95 | Jun 4 |
| Maryland | 10,000 | (es) 75,000 | *finished | 0 | 0 | 1,000 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Massachsts. | (reg) 34,000 | 10,000 | already on | (reg) 13 | (reg) 40 | 0 | Jul 1 | Jul 30 |
| Michigan | 30,891 | 30,891 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Jul 18 | Jul 18 |
| Minnesota | 89,731 | 2,000 | can't start | already on | can't start | can't start | May 1 | Sep 10 |
| Mississippi | just be org. | 1,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | already on | Apr 1 | Sep 6 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 5 | Aug 5 |
| Montana | 10,471 | 10,471 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Mar 14 | Jul 31 |
| Nebraska | 5,741 | 2,500 | *2,300 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 1 | Aug 27 |
| Nevada | 3,761 | 3,761 | already on | 0 | 1,000 | already on | Jul 11 | Jul 11 |
| New Hampshire | no procedure | 3,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 7 |
| New Jersey | no procedure | 800 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Jul 29 |
| New Mexico | 2,339 | 14,029 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | Jul 9 | Sep 10 |
| New York | no procedure | 15,000 | can't start | *can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 20 |
| North Carolina | 51,904 | (es) 80,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | in doubt | Jun 28 |
| North Dakota | 7,000 | 4,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 12 | Sep 6 |
| Ohio | 33,463 | 5,000 | *50 | 0 | 0 | 3,000 | 11-20-95 | Aug 22 |
| Oklahoma | 49,751 | 41,711 | *800 | 0 | 0 | *300 | May 31 | Jul 15 |
| Oregon | 18,316 | 14,601 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | Aug 27 | Aug 27 |
| Pennsylvania | no procedure | (es) 30,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 1 |
| Rhode Island | 18,069 | 1,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | Aug 1 | Sep 6 |
| South Carolina | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | 0 | already on | May 5 | Aug 1 |
| South Dakota | 7,792 | 3,117 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Apr 2 | Aug 6 |
| Tennessee | 37,179 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 20 |
| Texas | 43,963 | 61,541 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 19 | May 9 |
| Utah | 500 | 300 | already on | *already on | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | Sep 1 |
| Vermont | just be org. | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Sep 19 | Sep 19 |
| Virginia | no procedure | (es) 16,000 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Aug 23 |
| Washington | no procedure | 200 | can't start | can't start | can't start | can't start | -- | Jul 6 |
| West Virginia | no procedure | 6,837 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | Aug 1 |
| Wisconsin | 10,000 | 2,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | already on | Jun 1 | Sep 3 |
| Wyoming | 8,000 | 9,810 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 1 | Aug 25 |
Natural Law has *32,000 registrants in California, *200 in Hi., and is on in Nev & Vt. Other nationally-organized parties already on: Grassrts in Vt.; New Pty in Wis.; Wrkrs World in Mi. "FULL PARTY REQ." is a procedure by which a new party can qualify before it chooses candidates; not every state has such a procedure. Az. parties need either 15,062 pet. sigs. OR 14,500 registrants. "Already on" in Patriot column for Ak and Ct. is only good for president, not other office. In some states it is possible to start the full party procedure now, but not the candidate procedure; for these states, the entry refers to the more commonly-used method. * -- entry changed since last issue.
In the November 1994 elections, either the Republicans or the Democrats failed to run a candidate in 35.8% of all state legislative contests.
1994 was not atypical. In 1992, there was no Democrat or no Republican in 32.8% of the regularly-scheduled state legislative races; in 1990, 35.9%; in 1988, 36.6%.
See this note about tables.
| STATE | SEATS UP | NO DEM. | NO REP. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 140 | 14 | 60 |
| Alaska | 50 | 6 | 6 |
| Arizona | 90 | 29 | 18 |
| Arkansas | 118 | 8 | 67 |
| California | 100 | 0 | 4 |
| Colorado | 83 | 9 | 8 |
| Connecticut | 187 | 14 | 12 |
| Delaware | 51 | 11 | 13 |
| Florida | 142 | 33 | 40 |
| Georgia | 236 | 51 | 109 |
| Hawaii | 65 | 1 | 20 |
| Idaho | 105 | 52 | 7 |
| Illinois | 139 | 17 | 21 |
| Indiana | 149 | 25 | 15 |
| Iowa | 125 | 32 | 21 |
| Kansas | 125 | 22 | 17 |
| Kentucky | 119 | 20 | 52 |
| Maine | 186 | 17 | 22 |
| Maryland | 188 | 3 | 42 |
| Massachusetts | 200 | 20 | 92 |
| Michigan | 148 | 0 | 2 |
| Minnesota | 136 | 10 | 2 |
| Missouri | 180 | 28 | 40 |
| Montana | 128 | 11 | 16 |
| Nevada | 53 | 6 | 6 |
| New Hampshire | 424 | 72 | 66 |
| New Mexico | 71 | 10 | 27 |
| New York | 211 | 22 | 20 |
| North Carolina | 170 | 27 | 51 |
| North Dakota | 122 | 11 | 9 |
| Ohio | 116 | 7 | 4 |
| Oklahoma | 125 | 20 | 44 |
| Oregon | 75 | 6 | 7 |
| Pennsylvania | 228 | 40 | 39 |
| Rhode Island | 150 | 10 | 60 |
| South Carolina | 124 | 41 | 43 |
| South Dakota | 105 | 19 | 14 |
| Tennessee | 116 | 22 | 35 |
| Texas | 181 | 43 | 71 |
| Utah | 91 | 13 | 4 |
| Vermont | 180 | 18 | 31 |
| Washington | 122 | 12 | 8 |
| West Virginia | 119 | 5 | 37 |
| Wisconsin | 116 | 27 | 21 |
| Wyoming | 78 | 33 | 9 |
| TOTAL | 6,167 | 897 | 1,312 |
Five states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey and Virginia) did not elect partisan legislators in 1994 and are omitted.
When any major party nominee captured the opposing major party's nomination as well as his or her own party's nomination, the opposing party is considered not to have a nominee. This happened only in California, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont.
The May 4 B.A.N. noted that the Texas League of Women Voters had changed its policy, and in the future will invite anyone who is on the ballot, into debates for statewide office. The Iowa League of Women Voters will probably make the same change, although the final decision hasn't been announced; support for the idea was unanimous at a series of Iowa LWV meetings recently.
Also, the list of states (in the last issue) in which the LWV already has the more inclusive policy should have included the Michigan LWV.
1. Patriot/Independence: held a national convention in Minneapolis May 19-21. The party resolved to run a presidential candidate in 1996, whether a very prominent individual emerges or not. Nicholas Sabatine was reelected National Chair. The Utah Independence Party has affiliated itself with the national Patriot Party, but the New York Independence Party has decided not to affiliate.
2. United We Stand America: will hold a national convention in Dallas, August 11-13, to decide whether to support creation of a new party.
3. Green: a national conference will be held in Albuquerque, N.M., July 27-30, with emphasis on electoral strategy. Dolores Huerta, head of the United Farm Workers Union and former head of the proposed 21st Century Party (the party which the National Organization for Women once intended to create) will be one of the speakers.
4. National People's Progressive Network: holds a national conference to discuss electoral strategy on August 18-20 in Pittsburgh. Among the co-sponsors of the meeting are the National Committee for Independent Political Action, The Peace & Freedom Party, and Campaign for a New Tomorrow (which sponsored the presidential candidacy of Ron Daniels in 1992).
5. Labor Party Advocates: will hold a national convention to found a Labor Party in late May or early June 1996. The party probably won't run any candidates in 1996 and perhaps for several years afterwards.
On May 26, COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to hear the appeal in COFOE v McElderry, the case over whether Oklahoma must permit write-in votes for president, since ballot access is so tough there.
Quotes from the March 29 debate on term limits, by members of the U.S. House who opposed the idea:
1. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tx): "Let us not take away any rights from American citizens. Let us support free & open elections."
2. Maxine Waters (D-Ca): "Do not restrict voters' ability to elect whom they want."
3. Jerry Lewis (R-Ca): "The people's right to choose should not be abridged."
4. Tom Foglietta (D-Pa): "This amendment would take away choice."
5. Mel Watt (D-NC): "Limiting the voters' choice is undemocratic and I submit to you, it is un-American."
6. Barney Frank (D-Ma): "Do not enshrine in this Constitution the biggest restriction on the untrammeled right of the voters to vote for whomever they want."
7. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hi): "Among the things that define a democracy is the absolute right to be able to cast our votes freely and without coercion...not only it is wrong to restrict access to the ballot, it is dangerous, a fundamental danger to American democracy."
8. John Duncan (R-Tn): "Term limits really take away another right of our people -- the right to vote for whomever they please."
9. Albert Wynn (D-Md): "I think the people ought to have the right to select the person that they want."
10. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wi): "The Constitution should not tell the voters who they cannot vote for."
11. John E. Porter (R-Il): "The Founders decided that the responsibility for choosing the people who would represent them should not be controlled or limited by the Government."
12. Harris Fawell (R-Il): "Why should we now limit the democratic rights of 'we the people' to select their representatives in the House of the people?'
13. Tom Bliley (R-Va): "To deny the people's basic democratic right to have whoever they choose to serve at their pleasure is a vote of no confidence in American democracy. Why should we deny the voters their right?"
14. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): "Term limits takes away the right of the people to choose whomever they want as their Representative in free elections."
15. Henry Hyde (R-Il): "If someone told you you had to vote for a particular person, you would wonder if you were back in the Soviet Union. What is the essential difference if they tell you you may not vote for this person? They have limited your range of choices. You have narrowed the circle of possibilities. You have denied a fundamental right free people have in a free country."
16. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY): "For the first time an amendment is proposed that would restrict the rights of Americans to make a free and open choice regarding their representative."
17. Bill Hefner (D-NC): "I would hope we would not pass an amendment that would prohibit any member of this House from having some precious soul in their district exercise their God-given right to vote for whomever they want to."
18. John Tanner (D-Tn): "These people are asking us to take away your right as an American citizen to vote for whomever you wish."
19. Vic Fazio (D-Ca): "In a democracy, individuals should be able to vote for the representative of their choice."
20. Thomas Manton (D-NY): "Any infringement on the right of the people to freely elect their representatives is a threat to democracy."