• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Supreme Court Upholds CA Term Limits

Updated 3/23/98

The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear a challenge to California's term limits law. The law, passed by California voters in 1990, limits state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms, and bars lawmakers who reach the limit from ever running again.

Without commenting, the court refused to hear arguments by state legislators and citizens who claimed that the law violates the rights of California voters to support their chosen candidates. The appeal also argued that voters were not aware when they voted in favor of the measure that they were approving a lifetime ban.

California's term limits law has had a complicated run through the courts. It was first challenged in federal court in April 1997, when a judge ruled its lifetime restrictions unconstitutional. See a summary of the April 1997 decision: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/about/Caterm~1.htm This judgment was affirmed by a three-judge panel of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court in Oct. 1997, but for a different reason. The panel said that the initiative approved in 1990 was unconstitutional because it did not clearly stipulate that it would impose a lifetime ban. Both decisions were reversed by the full 9^th Circuit court in Dec. 1997, which ruled that the lifetime limits were "not severe," and that California voters knew and fully understood what they were voting on. See the full Bates v. Jones, 97-15864 decision:

In refusing to hear this case, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of California's term limits law, and the ruling sets no national precedent. At the same time, it is a victory for term limits supporters.

For more information on the case, contact Jennie Drage Bowser, at NCSL's Denver office.

On-line Documents