North Dakota's War on Geriatric Politicians

 

by Pa Rock

Citizen Journalist

This June voters in the state of North Dakota will have a chance to weigh-in on a on a citizen-driven ballot initiative designed to set an upper age limit on members of Congress elected from North Dakota. The proposed legislation would prevent anyone who would reach the age of eighty-one before the end of the term for which they are running from getting their names on the ballot.  That would apply to people seeking to be US Representatives or US Senators from the state.

The specific language of the ballot initiative reads:

"No person may be elected or appointed to serve a term or portion of a term in the US Senate or the US House of Representatives if that person could attain 81 years of age by December 31st of the year immediately preceding the end of the term."

The state's political establishment does not seem to be getting too excited over the issue, assuming that if the populist measure is passed, it will quickly be challenged by some moldy, old politician and ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, a political body that is unlikely to look kindly upon the notion of upper age limits for self-important government officials.

There was a big push across the United States at the end of the last century to control the amount of time that people could keep a seat warm in a legislature, and several states passed term limits for members of their state legislatures, often through citizen initiatives and much to the chagrin of many sitting legislators.  But when the talk turned to limiting the number of terms that a national legislator (US Representative or Senator) could serve, the Supreme Court got involved and ruled in 1995 that the states cannot set qualifications for Congress beyond those set forth in the Constitution.  Clarence Thomas, the only member of the current Supreme Court who was serving at the time of the term limits decision, dissented saying that the states or the people can act on issues where the Constitution is silent.

Clarence, of course, may view the entire matter differently now that he is finally in a majority in the Court, and it has become a bulwark of right-wing political machinations.

But, regardless, it's always entertaining to watch the US Supreme Court as it tries to justify its actions in thwarting the will of the people.

(My preference would be a lower age limit:  "75 and Out!" has a nice ring to it!)