Voters will decide whether 81 is too old to serve in Congress

N.D.>> Voters in this state will decide in June whether to prevent people from running for Congress if they’re old enough to turn 81 during their House or Senate term.

A signature drive has succeeded in adding the question to the ballot, Secretary of State Michael Howe’s office announced Friday. And although some legal scholars say the state age limit for congressional seats would be unconstitutional, it could lead to a challenge of a Supreme Court precedent that has held for decades.

The ballot initiative wouldn’t prevent any current incumbents from running again. The oldest member of North Dakota’s three-person congressional delegation is Republican Sen. John Hoeven, at 67. North Dakota has had octogenarian senators in the past, including Democrat Quentin Burdick, who died in office in 1992 at age 84.

Although the initiative applies only to congressional seats, this election year also will feature President Joe Biden, 81, and former President Donald Trump, 77, competing in an election rematch that has drawn scrutiny ages and fitness.

Howe’s office said that of the 42,000 signatures measure backers submitted in February, they had about 1,200 more valid signatures than the 31,164 needed to place the measure on the ballot.

The ballot measure could be an attempt to draw a test case to see if the U.S. Supreme Court would be willing to allow individual states to set congressional age limits, University of North Dakota political science professor Mark Jendrysik has said. The court ruled in a 1995 term limits case that states cannot set qualifications for Congress beyond those listed in the U.S. Constitution, which says candidates must be at least 25 to serve in the House, 30 in the Senate and 35 to become president, but sets no maximum age limits.

The measure “looks unconstitutional” under that decision, said Jason Marisam, who teaches constitutional and election law at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minn.

The only justice remaining from that 1995 decision is Clarence Thomas, who dissented, saying that states or the people can act on issues where the Constitution is silent. of their