On February 15, the Tennessee Senate State & Local Government passed SB 2616 by a vote of 5-1. It says that political parties cannot nominate anyone for either house of congress, if that person had not voted in Tennessee in each of the last three statewide general elections. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.
So, how is an 18 year-old supposed to have voted in the last three elections? This bill is clearly and undeniably unconstitutional.
never mind. I was incorrect in my thinking. Congress is 25 not 18. But still it is unconstitutional.
IMO, the decision as to who to nominate ought to be left up to the parties as much as possible, and not limited by non-constitutional requirements by the legislature.
This sort of additional requirement can be used a precedent for other types of non-constitutional requirements, like require a candidates to reveal income tax returns.
Unconstitutional, as with other states’ many efforts to add requirements to run for Congress beyond what’s in the Constitution. Will be struck down in a New York minute.
Beyond that, and beyond what Zachary said, it discriminates against people who have moved from other states since the third-most recent electoral cycle. Ergo, it’s also arguably a violation of the interstate commerce clause.
Election laws are getting more stupid every year. What’s next? The nominee to be able to juggle four red balls for 10 minutes to get on the ballot!
1. Running for office is not “commerce”
2. Career politicians from other states have no right to run for office in other states
3. People who recently moved to another state are not a protected class
The bill would also adversely affect individuals who had recently become naturalized.
Seems like a reasonable restriction to me. Someone who recently moved to a state or recently became a citizen should not represent the people who have lived there for generations in congress. People whose family has been in that state for at least 3 or 4 generations by the time they are born should be the only ones eligible, unless the state was a territory then, in which case their family should have been living in the territory. For that matter those are the only people who should be allowed to vote as well.
SB 2616 was amended in committee to make the requirement for nomination the same as residency for the state legislature, which is three years (and one year in the district). In Tennessee it appears these requirements are at the time of election, rather than the time the term begins.
The video of the hearing is quite interesting. If you click on the video for the hearing you will get a list of bills so you can skip down to the part of the hearing for the bill.
The sponsor began by quoting the opinion of what he said was that of Justice Scalia. It was pointed out by the committee lawyer that the quote was from the dissent in US Term Limits, which was written by Justice Thomas, with CJ Rehnquist, and JJ O’Connor and Scalia joining it.
The sponsor then argued that with a conservative court what was unconstitutional in 1995 would be constitutional today. He then made a remark about if someone wanted to argue with Scalia that he would not want to associate with that person. It was unclear whether he meant that he thought that someone who wanted to argue with a dead person was tetched in the head, or that someone who would argue with Scalia was unbalanced. Another senator claimed that FDR favors (sic, present verb tense) the bill.
The lawyer for the committee indicated that he believed was unconstitutional (in a lawyerly way advising his client, the committee, so not making aszn absolute asserion). He said that there had been a case in California that had been ruled unconstitutional after US Term Limits.
The sponsor thought that since his bill applied to primaries that it differed from one that applied to all candidates. Another senator suggested that this would violate freedom of association for the parties. It was not clear whether a restriction could be based on party rule, or simply that the party electorate would vote against a newcomer.
Perhaps there is a potential candidate for Congress in 2022 that the law would apply to. If they filed suit to overturn the restriction, the adverse publicity might be as effective as an actual ban.
It is ambigious if the district residency applies, and when
@RW,
As amended, it is not clear whether it applies to newly naturalized citizens.
To be a representative, one must be a US citizen and Tennessee citizen for three years.
To be a senator, one must be a US citizen and a Tennessee resident for three years.
So the restriction is less severe on senators than representatives.
All it does is change the rules in the middle of the game.
Mr. Libertarian:
1. You know the gist of what I mean; if not that, reciprocity clauses.
2. WRONG. If I move to another state and meet its residency requirement, I can run for office, whether I’m a “career politician” (whatever the hell that means) or not.
3. Wrong in the same general vein, as I never said politicians are a “protected class.” Anyway, it’s unconstitutional under the main tenet.
If I understand correctly: 1) this bill only passed out of committee; it has yet to pass Legislature. 2) this bill presumably applies exclusively to Congress. That in itself is questionable if not also applied to State Legislature.
My constitutional view is inferred. US Constitution, Article I, Section. 2. states that qualifications for Congress shall be requisite with qualifications of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
While this strictly applies to qualification of the electors, still the Constitution implies that qualifications for Congress can be no more onerous than those imposed upon State Legislature.
For reference, Tennessee Constitution: Article II, Legislative Department
Section 9. No person shall be a representative unless he shall be a citizen of the
United States, of the age of twenty-one years, and shall have been a citizen of this state
for three years, and a resident in the county he represents one year, immediately
preceding the election.
Section 10. No person shall be a senator unless he shall be a citizen of the United
States, of the age of thirty years, and shall have resided three years in this state, and
one year in the county or district, immediately preceding the election.
Because no imposition whatever is made in the State Constitution that nominees to the Tennessee Legislature be required to provide evidence of voting in the previous three elections (a four or perhaps six year period), by inference therefore the act violates the US Constitution.
Scotus opins — Constitution Annotated – sentence by sentence
https://constitution.congress.gov
—-
Failure to indict State hacks — legis/ exec/ judic — for subversions of USA Const.
*may* change after 6 jan 2021 attack on USA Capitol.
@FW,
You are correct that it only passed a senate committee. I got the impression it was more of a courtesy vote, and the senators knew it would either get bottled up procedurely, vetoed, or overturned if it did somehow pass.
The 10th Amendment argument is weak because Congress would not exist without the US Constitution.